^  OCT  2 1  1940 


B)rTlO  .L6  1913 

Logan,  Maurice  S.,  1859 

Sabbath  theology 


(CR:  Creatioa  Resuttection) 


SABBATH  THEOLOGY 


A  Reply  to  Those  who  Insist  that 

Saturday  is  the  Only  True 

Sabbath  Day 


^^H  OF  pm/v^ 


^K 


by 

MAURICE  S.  LOGAN 
Author   of   "Musicology." 


.  OCT  2 1  1940 


LORD'S  DAY  ALLIANCE  OF  THE    UNITED  STATES 

203    BROADWAY 
NEW  YORK  CITY 


Copyright,  1913, 
By 
MAURICE  S.  LOGAN 
Entered  at  Stationer's  Hall,  London,  England. 


PEEFACE 

The  day  of  the  Sabbath  and  the  true  interpretation 
of  the  Sabbath  law  are  the  main  issues  involved  in 
*' Sabbath  Theology.'^  Saturday  Sabbath  theology 
teaches  that  the  Bible  recognizes  no  Sabbath  (in  a 
weekly  sense)  but  the  seventh  day  of  the  week.  It 
is  one  aim  of  this  book  to  prove  that  the  Sunday  Sab- 
bath is  the  only  Sabbath  that  has  now  any  Bible 
authority  in  a  day  appointed  sense. 

Seventh  Day  Adventists  are  undoubtedly  the 
ablest  and  most  aggressive  champions  of  the  Satur- 
day Sabbath  theology.  Hence,  for  the  sake  of  di- 
rectness and  the  added  interest  which  direct  con- 
troversy lends,  and  the  need  in  vindicating  truth  to 
meet  and  refute  false  conceptions  of  truth,  the  dis- 
cussion of  ^'Sabbath  Theology"  is  here  presented 
largely  in  the  form  of  a  reply  to  Seventh  Day  Ad- 
ventists. The  author  still  aims,  however,  to  justify 
the  title  ^* Sabbath  Theology.'' 

The  Seventh  Dav  Adventists'  Sabbath  doctrine 
has  its  roots  in  the  Old  Testament.  Hence  refuting 
the  doctrine  from  the  New  Testament  standpoint 
alone  is  like  cutting  off  the  branches  of  a  tree  with- 


IV  PEEFACE 

out  digging  it  up  by  the  roots.  So  long  as  the  roots 
remain  the  tree  will  grow.  The  only  hope,  therefore, 
of  any  effective  result  is  in  digging  out  the  very 
roots  of  the  doctrine,  and  only  a  thorough  work  is 
worth  while.  The  main  roots  of  the  doctrine  are: 
1st,  that  the  creation  days  were  twenty-four  hour 
days;  2nd,  that  the  primitive  Sabbath  was  the  sev- 
enth day  of  the  week;  3rd  that  the  withholding  of 
the  manna  proved  the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath; 
4th,  that  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  was  fixed  by  the 
Sabbath  law.  If  these  theories  can  be  disproved  con- 
clusively, it  follows  that  the  Sabbath  doctrine  grow- 
ing out  of  them  will  be  destroyed  both  root  and 
branch,  and  only  in  this  way  is  it  possible  to  meet 
the  Seventh  Day  Adventists  on  their  own  ground. 
Moreover,  since  these  theories  are  held  (not  only 
by  Adventists),  they  are  necessarily  involved  in  a 
complete  discussion  of  Sabbath  theology. 

The  doctrine  that  God's  Sabbath  law  was  abol- 
ished, involves  a  practical  admission  of  these  roots 
of  the  Saturday  Sabbath  doctrine,  and  since  it  does 
not  touch  the  roots  of  the  evil,  it  cannot  destroy  the 
tree.  The  all  too  evident  purpose  of  the  doctrine  is 
to  get  rid  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  at  any  cost.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  in  thus  destroying  the  Bible 
authority  of  the  Sabbath  this  doctrine  is  directly 
responsible  in  a  very  large  measure  for  the  Con- 
tinental Sunday.  No  matter  how  old  the  doctrine 
may  be,  or  how  many  eminent  and  good  men  have 
supported  it,  the  principle  remains  true  that,  ^^by 
their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  It  ranks  there- 
fore as  equally  dangerous  with  the  doctrine  it  was 
meant  to  destroy. 


PREFACE  V 

The  sacreclness  of  the  Sabbath  is  the  only  sure  / 
foundation  on  which  to  buikl  in  Sabbath  reform,  I 
and  this  must  rest  on  God's  command  ^'Remember  / 
the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy,"  which  has  never 
yet  been  repealed  any  more  than  have  the  nine  other 
precepts  of  the  Decalogue  which  are  still  recognized 
as  binding. 

*^But  comparatively  little  will  be  accomplished 
until  we  have  a  clear,  well  grounded  Sabbath  doc- 
trine. "—(Waffle) . 

That  Seventh  Day  Adventists  are  the  most  for- 
midable opponents  of  Sabbath  legislation  is  a  fact 
that  has  been  repeatedly  demonstrated.  Not  only  do 
they  divide  the  Christian  strength  that  should  be 
united  against  a  common  enemy,  but  combine  with 
the  avowed  enemies  of  Christ  to  defeat  Sabbath 
legislation;  and  by  reason  of  their  intense  but  mis- 
guided religious  zeal  (due  to  their  Sunday  mark  of 
the  beast  doctrine)  they  easily  become  the  recog- 
nized leaders  of  the  enemies'  forces.  Their  evident 
honesty  and  sincereity,  their  evident  religious  con- 
victions, their  apparently  plausible  arguments,  and 
their  posing  as  the  champions  of  religious  liberty 
win  the  sympathy  and  support  of  many  honest 
legislators. 

From  a  recent  Adventist  leaflet  entitled  '*  Seventh 
Day  Adventism"  we  quote  the  following — ^^In  57 
nations  their  representatives  are  carrying  the  gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ  to  those  who  are  sitting  in  darkness 
and  the  shadow  of  death.  Their  gifts  to  the  gospel 
amount  to  two  and  a  half  million  annually.  One 
out  of  every  thirteen  of  their  membership  is  de- 
finitely engaged  in  some  form  of  gospel  work.  They 
maintain  686  educational  institutions  of  all  grades  in 


yi  PBEFACE 

which  are  enrolled  over  21,000  students  under  1,319 
instructors.  Their  28  publishing  houses  print  the 
gospel  in  71  different  languages  and  the  annual  out- 
put of  their  literature  is  valued  at  nearly  two  mil- 
lion dollars.  They  have  three  and  a  half  million  dol- 
dars  invested  in  medical  missionary  institutions  in 
all  parts  of  the  world.  160  physicians  and  2,000 
trained  nurses  are  connected  with  that  department 
of  their  work.  Over  ten  million  dollars  is  invested 
in  their  educational  and  philanthropic  institutions. 
In  all  these  ways  they  are  seeking  to  uplift  and  bless 
humanity. ' ' 

This  gives  some  idea  of  the  present  strength  of 
the  S.  D.  Adventist  organization.  In  so  far  as  they 
do  good  through  the  essential  doctrines  of  salvation 
which  they  hold  in  common  with  other  Christian 
churches  no  fault  can  be  found.  But  this  outlay 
mainly  represents  antagonism  to  all  other  Christian 
churches  and  in  so  far  as  this  is  true  we  have  a 
^ blouse  divided  against  itself'^  and  to  that  extent  it 
is  not  only  wasted  time  and  money,  but  a  positive 
hindrance  to  the  Gospel. 

Their  Sabbath  doctrine,  and  their  doctrine  that  all 
other  churches  are  Babylon  and  rejected  of  God,  nec- 
essarily makes  co-operation  with  other  Christian 
churches  impossible. 

Their  one  great  distinctive  present  day  mission, 
as  they  themselves  affirm,  is  to  proclaim  the  Third 
AngePs  Message,  and  the  vital  point  in  their  third 
angePs  message  is  that  Sunday  is  the  mark  of  the 
beast.  This  then  is  the  very  heart  and  soul  of  their 
entire  propaganda,  and  is  thus  the  basis  on  which  to 
judge  the  value  of  their  work  as  a  whole  in  its  rela- 
tion to  the  gospel. 


PREFACE  Vll 

Even  setting  the  Sabbath  question  aside  and  judg- 
ing from  the  standpoint  of  the  essential  truths  of  the 
gospel  which  they  teach,  their  remarkable  growth  is 
not  a  positive  measure  of  gospel  progress,  for  the 
greater  part  is  but  the  measure  of  what  they  detract 
from  the  work  of  other  Christian  churches;  not  to 
mention  the  direct  hindrance  to  the  gospel  due  to  the 
inevitable  friction  and  confusion  involved,  which 
must  be  especially  obstructive  to  the  acceptance  of 
the  gospel  in  non-Christian  countries. 

Hence  the  only  justification  for  the  Adventists' 
great  outlay  of  time  and  money  must  depend  on  the 
truth  of  their  doctrine  regarding  the  Sabbath  and 
regarding  the  churches  as  Babylon  and  rejected  of 
God. 

Their  1863  report  gives  22  ministers,  8  licentiates, 
and  3,500  members.  Their  1912  report  gives  863 
ministers,  492  licentiates,  1,386  missionaries,  2,194 
canvassers,  and  114,206  members.  What  does  this 
promise  for  the  future  when  we  consider  the  natural 
accelerating  rate  of  increase  due  to  numbers?  And 
what  does  this  in  turn  promise  for  Sabbath  legisla- 
tion when  they  have  already  proved  themselves  the 
most  formidable  opponents  of  Sabbath  legislation? 
Yet  still  it  is  the  general  policy  of  the  Christian 
churches  to  ignore  them. 

The  time  has  surely  come  for  the  general  awaken- 
ing of  the  churches  to  a  realizing  sense  of  the  na- 
ture of  the  Adventists'  campaign  against  the  Sun- 
day Sabbath.  The  campaign  consists  of  a  thorough- 
ly organized  and  systematic  propaganda  to  oppose 
Sabbath  legislation,  to  encourage  the  violation  of 
existing  Sabbath  laws,  and  to  encourage  in  every 


Vm  PEEFACE 

way  possible  the  desecration  of  the  Sunday  Sabbath ; 
and  is  waged  with  all  the  zeal  of  fanaticism  due  to 
their  Sunday  mark  of  the  beast  doctrine. 

It  would  seem  that  the  only  practical  way  to 
counteract  this  campaign  would  be  by  a  general 
counter  educational  campaign  on  Sabbath  doctrine, 
with  special  reference  to  showing  the  true  character 
of  the  Adventists'  Sabbath  doctrine  in  the  light  of 
the  Bible.  To  be  forewarned  is  to  be  forearmed. 
If  all  the  churches  that  are  interested  in  Sunday 
Sabbath  reform  took  hold  of  this  campaign  with  the 
commendable  zeal  that  Adventists  display,  there 
could  be  no  question  as  to  the  worth  while  results. 

The  S.  D.  Adventist  menace  to  Sunday  Sabbath 
reform  is  mainly  in  the  obstruction  they  present  to 
Sabbath  legislation — 1,  in  raising  the  question  of  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath;  2,  in  raising  the  question  of 
religious  persecution ;  3,  by  effectively  posing  as  the 
champions  of  religious  liberty. 

The  Sabbath  is  the  great  bulwark  of  religious  lib- 
erty and  the  danger  is  not  in  the  State  recognizing 
4he  fact  but  in  its  ignoring  the  fact. 

A  still  greater  menace  to  Sunday  Sabbath  reform 
is  the  growing  tendency  (even  among  church  mem- 
bers) to  make  the  Sunday  Sabbath  a  holiday  instead 
of  a  holy  day.  The  doctrine  that  God's  Sabbath 
law  was  abolished,  furnishes  a  valid  excuse,  and  is 
thus  the  entering  wedge  to  the  Continental  Sunday. 

It  is  evident  that  each  of  these  evils  can  be  met 
only  in  a  doctrinal  campaign.  To  supply  the  text 
for  such  a  doctrinal  compaign  is  one  purpose  of  this 
book. 

M.  S.  L. 


CONTENTS  AND  ANALYSIS 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAGE 

The  Ceeation  Days 19 

The  Twenty-four  Hour  Creation-day  Theory  the  Foun- 
dation of  the  Seventh-day  Adventist  Sabbath  Doctrine — 
The  Word  "Day"— "The  Evening  and  the  Morning"— 
The  Sunset  to  Sunset  Method  of  Counting  Time — Its 
Origin  in  Lev.  23  :  32,  not  in  Gen.  1   :  5 — Evening  and 
Morning  Versus   Night  and   Day — Reply  to  J.   N.  An- 
drews— Change    of    Condition    and    Duration    the    Two 
Elements  Involved  in  the  Creation  Days — The  Fact  of 
Creation  Wholly  Dependent  on  the  Former — Proof  that 
Moses  did  not  have  the  Duration  of  the  Creation  Days 
in  Mind — Proof  that  Moses  had  in  Mind  the  Change  of 
Condition  Involved  in  the  Creation  Days — The  Second 
Account  of  Creation  in  Gen.  2  :  A — Ps.  90  :  4,  with  the 
Creation  Reference  Preceding — Deut.  4  :  32 — Summary 
of  Moses'  Testimony — 2  Peter  3  :  8,  with  the  Creation 
Reference  Preceding — The  Presumption  Implied  in  Job 
38    :   24,25— The   Two-fold   Time   Sense   of   God's   Rest 
Day — God's  Rest  as  Lasting  as  the  Finished  Creation — 
The  Twenty-four  Hour  Creation-day  Theory  as  Contra- 
dicting Nature — True  Science  God's  Word  as  Truly  as 
the  Bible— The  Child  Thought  Argument. 


%  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

CHAPTER  II. 
The  Beginning  of  Time 56 

Time — Two  General  Theories  Regarding  the  Beginning 
of  Time — Deut.  4  :  32 — The  Distinction  Between  the 
Chronological  Sense  and  the  Birthday  or  Memorial 
Sense  of  Time — Beginning  of  the  Bible  Chronology — 
"The  Beginning"  in  Gen.  1  :  1 — God's  Rest  Day  as  the 
Seventh  in  the  Same  Series  With  the  Creation  Days — 
The  Sense  in  Which  God's  Seventh  Day  was  Man's 
First  Day — Duration  of  Adam's  Existence  on  the  Sixth 
Creation  Day — The  Institution  of  the  Sabbath,  Necessi- 
tating the  Counting  of  Days,  as  the  Starting  Point  of 
Time — The  Fall  of  Man  as  the  Reason  for  and  Origin 
of  Time,  the  Sabbath,  and  the  Bible — The  One  Common 
Head  of  the  Human  Race. 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Weekly  Cycle  and  the  Pkimitive  Sabbath    70 

The  First  Day  of  Time  as  Completing  the  Sense  of 
God's  Model  Week — The  Sabbath  as  the  Seventh  Day 
of  the  Model  Week  and  the  First  Day  of  the  Time 
Week — The  Two-fold  (Memorial  and  Typical)  Signifi- 
cance of  the  Sabbath — Why  Only  the  Creation  Reason 
was  Appended  to  the  Sabbath  Law  in  Exodus  20 — 
Three  Reasons  Why  Only  the  First  Day  of  the  Week 
Sabbath  Conforms  Perfectly  to  the  Creation  Model — 
The  Sabbath  as  Belonging  in  a  Sabbath  Sense  to  the 
Six  Days  Before,  from  Which  it  is  the  Resting — The 
Sabbath  Law  Independent  of  Chronological  Limita- 
tions— First  Things  as  God's — Memorial  Analysis  of  the 
Sabbath — Reply  to  Adventists-  Argument  that  God  Can- 
not Change  the  Day  of  the  Sabbath — Double  Memorial 
Theory — The  Moral  and  the  Economic  Elements  of  the 
Sabbath  as  Related  to  the  Moral  Law — Reasons  Dis- 
proving the  Theory  of  No  Sabbath  Before  the  Manna — 
Reasons  Disproving  the  Theory  that  the  Original 
Weekly  Cycle  and  the  Original  Day  of  the  Sabbath 
were   Lost. 


CONTENTS  XI 

CHAPTER  IV. 

PAGE 
SUN-WOESHIP  AND  OkIGIN  OF  THE  DaY  NaMES  92 

Universality  of  Sun-worship  and  Uniformity  of  the  Day 
of  Sun-worship  Throughout  the  Ancient  World — Com- 
mon Origin  in  the  Original  Day  of  the  Sabbath  the 
only  Possible  Explanation  of  the  Uniformity  of  the  Day 
— Sun-worship  the  Most  Natural  and  hence  the  Earliest 
Perversion  of  the  Original  Worship  of  God — Origin  of 
Sun-worship — The  Day  of  Sun-worship  but  the  Per- 
verted Day  of  the  Original  Sabbath — The  Ever  Increas- 
ing Force  of  Habit — Necessity  of  Changing  the  Day  of 
the  Sabbath  to  Make  it  a  Sign  Between  God  and  the 
Israelites — Necessity  of  Restoring  the  Original  Day  of 
the  Sabbath  in  Order  to  Vindicate  God's  Supremacy 
over  Satan — Adventists*  Attempt  to  Associate  Sun-wor- 
ship with  the  Christian  Sabbath — Origin  of  the  Day 
Names — Reasons  that  Disprove  the  Theory  that  Satur- 
day was  the  First  Day  of  the  Week  in  the  Egyptian 
Calendar. 

CHAPTER  V. 
The  Jewish  Calendak 99 

Reasons  Which  Argue  that  the  Jewish  Sabbaths  were 
Both  Fixed  Days  of  the  Week  and  Fixed  Days  of  the 
Year,  Making  the  Year  an  Even  Number  of  Weeks  (364 
days) — The  Intercalary  Week  Every  Five  or  Six  Years 
— Thirty-day  Month — Lunar  Theory — Supplementary 
Days  at  the  End  of  the  Year — All  Calendars  Subject  to 
Periodic  Correction — Distinction  Between  the  Jewish 
Civil  and  the  Jewish  Sacred  Year — The  Two  Equal 
Divisions  of  the  Jewish  Year — The  Annual  Sabbaths  as 
"Besides"  the  Weekly  Sabbaths— The  Theory  of  Two- 
Days-as-One  Sabbath  at  Pentecost  Considered — The 
Jewish  Sabbath  as  the  First  Day  of  the  Week  in  the 
Jewish  Calendar  Which  Had  its  Beginning  in  Ex.  12  :  2 
—Two  Definite  Proofs  Involved— The  Change  of  Calen- 
dar the  Proper  Accompaniment  to  the  Change  in  the 
Day  of  the  Sabbath  Eike  a  Modulation  in  Music. 


XH  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  VI. 

PAGE 

Sabbath  Testimony  of  the  Ancient  Calendars 

AND  Languages , 118 

The  Original  Weekly  Cycle — The  Two-fold  Purpose  of 
the  Sabbath — The  Probable  Conditions  that  Existed  at 
the  Time  the  Earliest  Calendars  Were  Formed — The 
Separation  of  the  Worship  Day  Sense  and  the  Rest  Day 
Sense  of  the  Sabbath  in  the  Formation  of  the  Ancient 
Calendars — The  Month — The  Ancient  Calendar  Sab- 
baths as  Fixed  Days  of  the  Month  and  therefore  not  a 
Fixed  Day  of  the  Original  Weekly  Cycle — The  Original 
Weekly  Cycle  Independent  of  All  National  Calendars 
Then  as  Now — The  Method  of  Counting  "into  the  Sab- 
bath" Implying  Some  Other  Method  by  way  of  Distinc- 
tion— Reply  to  A.  H.  Lewis,  D.  D.,  Relative  to  the  Ac- 
cadian   Calender — Relative  to   the   Calendar   of   India — 

Relative  to  the  Hindus  or  Buddhist  Calendar Reply 

Continued— The  Chart  of  Weeks  by  W.  M.  Jones,  D.  D., 
Examined. 

CHAPTER  VIL 

The  Saturday  Resurrection  Theory 

Examined , 143 

Reply  to  Dr.  Lewis  (the  Originator  of  the  Theory) — 
Reply  to  T.  W.  Richardson's  Recent  Revival  of  the 
Theory — The  Apparent  Discrepancies  in  the  Four  Ac- 
counts of  the  Resurrection  Examined — Reply  to  A.  G. 
Marks. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 
The  Fourth  Commandment   173 

The  Seal  Nature  of  the  Creation  Reason  Appended  to 
the  Sabbath  Law — The  Creation  Memorial  Principle — 
The  Double  Memorial  Nature  of  the  Sabbath— The  Jew- 
ish Sabbath  a  Type  of  the  Christian  Sabbath— The 
Christian  Sabbath  a  Memorial  of  Creation — Gen.  2   :  3 


CONTEXTS  Xlll 

PAGE 
and  Ex.  20  :  11  Examined — Reply  to  the  Fixed  Day- 
Argument  Based  on  the  Definite  Article  "the"  and  Pro- 
noun "it" — Reply  to  the  Argument  Based  on  the  Words 
"keep  holy" — The  Day  of  the  Sabbath  not  Specified 
Either  in  the  Sabbath  Law  or  in  the  Reason  Appended — 
The  Perfect  Law  of  God — Reply  to  Argument  Based 
on  the  Phrase  "The  Sabbath  of  the  Lord"— The  Day  of 
the  Sabbath  an  Economic,  not  a  Moral,  Issue — Seventh 
Day  of  the  Week  Sabbath  Doctrine  a  Thinking  to 
Change  Times  and  the  Law  (Dan.  7  :  25  R.  V.). 

CHAPTER  IX 

The  Double  Meimoeial  Jewish  Sabbath  . .         194 

The  Two  Memorial  Reasons  Appended  to  the  Fourth 
Commandment — The  Exodus  from  Egypt  as  a  Me- 
morial Reason  for  the  Sabbath — Reason  for  Changing 
the  Day  of  the  Sabbath — Change  of  Day  Implied  in  the 
Giving  of  the  Manna — The  Two  Memorial  Elements  of 
the  Sabbath  Distinguished  and  the  Necessary  Conclu- 
sion— Counter  Arguments  Relative  to  Dcut.  5  :  15  Con- 
sidered— The  Two  Copies  of  the  Law — Reasons  Which 
Argue  that  Deut.  5  :  7-21  is  a  True  Copy  of  the  Law  as 
Written  on  the  Tables  of  Stone  and  therefore  that 
Deut.  5  :  15  was  the  Reason  Given  for  the  Sabbath  as 
Written  on  the  Tables  of  Stone. 

CHAPTER  X. 

The  Double  Memomal  Christian  Sabbath  214 

Nature  of  the  Change  Involved  in  the  Christian  Sabbath 
— Gospel  of  the  Resurrection — Redemption  Planned 
Before  the  World  was  Created — The  Resurrection  the 
Climax  of  the  Plan  of  Redemption — The  Argument  In- 
volved Relative  to  the  Primitive  Sabbath — The  Transi- 
tion Sense  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath — The  Argument  In- 
volved in  the  Timing  of  the  Resurrection — The  Pre-emi- 


Xiy  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

nence  of  the  Redemption  over  God's  Rest  after  Creation 
as  a  Memorial  Event — Answer  to  the  Question,  "Where 
is  the  Authority  for  the  Change  in  the  Day  of  the  Sab- 
bath?"— The  Day  of  Sun-worship  versus  the  Christian 
Sabbath. 

CHAPTER  XI 
Pentecost 223 

The  Ten  Days  Waiting  for  the  Promised  Baptism  of  the 
Holy  Spirit — The  Argument  Involved  Relative  to  the 
Christian  Sabbath — Admissions  of  Leading  Seventh- 
day  Adventists  that  Pentecost  of  Acts  2  was  on  Sunday 
—The  Saturday  Theory— The  Bible  Testimony— The 
"Type  and  Anti-type"  Arguments — Relation  of  the 
Pentecost  of  Acts  2  to  the  Christian  Sabbath. 

CHAPTER  XII 

Sabbath  Witnesses  :  David,  Cheist,  Spieit  op 

Teuth  , 235 

David's  Prophecy  Regarding  the  Sabbath — Christ's 
Testimony  Regarding  the  Sabbath — The  Spirit  of  Truth. 

CHAPTER  XIII 

Sabbath  Witnesses  :  Paul,  John,  Luke  . . .  .,        250 

Paul's  Testimony  Regarding  the  Sabbath — John's  Testi- 
mony— Luke  23    :   56   Examined. 

CHAPTER  XIV 

Sabbath  Witnesses  :  Eaely  Cheistian 

Weitees  ,.., 283 

Testimony  of  the  Early  Christian  Writers — A  Few  Sup- 
plemental   Testimonies — Admission    of    Andrews     (the 


CONTENTS  XV 

PAGE 

Adventist  Historian)  and  the  Practical  Evidence  Fur- 
nished Thereby — HisAttempt  to  Evade  the  Testimony — 
A   Date  Argument — Three   Pertinent   Questions. 

CHAPTER  XV 

The  Resurrection  Testimony  of  the  Christian 

Sabbath   ^ 291 

The  Great  Justification  of  the  Christian  Sabbath — Crea- 
tion and  Redemption  Compared — The  Sense  of  the  Sev- 
venth  and  the  First  Day  of  the  Week  Sabbaths  Con- 
trasted— The  Resurrection  Gospel  and  the  Resurrection 
Sabbath — Reason  w^hy  Satan  Would  Gladly  Blot  out 
Every  Witness  to  the  Resurrection — The  Christian  Sab- 
bath as  a  Memorial  of  the  Resurrection  the  Strongest 
of  Witnesses — Satan's  Campaign  Against  it — His  Tac- 
tics— Those  Whom  He  Most  Easily  Deceives. 

CHAPTER  XVI 
The  Seal  of  God  . . ., 298 

A  Pertinent  Question  Relative  to  the  Sabbath  Seal  Doc- 
trine— The  Argument  that  "Sign"  and  "Seal"  are  used 
in  the  Bible  as  Synonymous  Terms  Considered — Char- 
acter Test  Argument — Seal  of  the  Holy  Spirit — Resur- 
rection Seal — 7th  Chapter  of  Revelation  Discussed — The 
"Father's  Name"  the  Symbolic  Seal  of  Revelation  7 — 

The    "Forehead" The    "Father's    Name"— Christian 

Character— The  Foundation  Seal  (2  Tim.  2  :  19)— The 
Inevitable  Tendency  of  the  Sabbath  Seal  Doctrine — The 
Basis  of  the  Sabbath  Seal  Doctrine. 

CHAPTER  XVII 
The  Mark  of  the  Beast 309 

The  Parallel  Argument — "His  Name"  or  "Number  of  his 
Name"  the  "Mark  of  the  Beast"— The  "Number  of  his 
Name"  Considered — Basis  of  the  Sunday  "Mark  of  the 
Beast"  Doctrine— Argument  Based  on  Rev.  13  :  17 — 
Satan  an  Experienced  Strategist — Three  Self-evident 
Propositions   and  the   Consequent   Conclusion — Satan's 


iXVl  CONTENTS 


PAGE 
"Sunday  Mark  of  the  Beast"  Campaign — The  Sunday 
Sabbath  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church — The  Lying 
Spirit — A  Chain  of  Facts  Proving  that  God,  not  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  Established  the  Sunday  Sab- 
bath— The  "Sun-worship  Origin  of  the  Sunday  Sab- 
bath" Argument  Answered — The  Council  of  Laodicea — 
Beginning  of  the  Papacy — The  "Dragon"  and  the 
Beast" — Satan's  Two  Attempts  to  Pervert  the  God  Ap- 
pointed Day — Three  Devices  of  Satan — Adventists'  In- 
terpretation of  Rev.  13  :  16,17  Considered — Adventists* 
Interpretation  of  Dan.  7  :  25  Considered — Basis  of  the 
Catholic  Clairti  to  Establishing  the  Sunday  Sabbath — : 
The  $1,000  Reward. 


ti 


CHAPTEE  XVIII 
Answek  to  Rome's  Challenge  ., 326 

Authorship — Author's  Editorial  in  Catholic  Mirror —  • 
Further  Catholic  Boastings — Adventist  and  Catholic 
Alliance — Reply  to  the  Author's  Editorial — Reply  to 
Rome's  Challenge — The  Author's  Boasting  Prelude  and 
Ranting  Finale — Rome's  Challenge  Published  by  Ad- 
ventists in  Support  of  their  "Mark  of  the  Beast"  Doc- 
trine— The  Boast  of  Unanswerability — Reason  for  An- 
swering it. 

,       CHAPTER  XIX 
The  Decalogue   343 

The  Reason  of  its  Pre-eminence — Permanent  Char- 
acter— The  Abolition  Doctrine  Considered — Paul's  Fin- 
ale (Rom.  3  :  31)— The  Abolition  Involved  in  Eph.  2  :  15 
and  Col.  2  :  14— Rom.  14  :  5;  Col.  2  :  16  and  Gal.  4  :  10,11 
Considered — The  Burden  of  Paul's  Teaching — 1  Tim. 
1  :  9;  Gal.  5  :  18,22,23;  Rom.  6  :  14  and  7  :  4,6  Con- 
sidered— Rom.  2  :  14,15 — Paul's  Argument  Concerning 
the  Promise  to  Abraham,  Gal.  3  :  17 — Origin  of  Moral 
Precepts — The  Argument  Relative  to  the  Two  Cove- 
nants— The  Letter  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Law — The  Argu- 
ment in  Christ's  Vindication  of  the  Eaw — Relation  of 


CONTENTS  XVil 


PAGE 
the  Jews  to  the  Covenants  and  the  Law — The  Terms 
"Moral  Law"  and  "Ceremonial  Law" — The  Teaching- 
in  Matt.  5  :  17,18;  Luke  18  :  20  and  Rom.  13  :  9— The 
Two  Great  Commandments  of  Love  to  God  and  Love  to 
Man  and  their  Relation  to  the  Decalogue — The  Moral 
Law  Tree  and  the  Cutting  Off  and  Grafting-  on  Process 
to  Get  Rid  of  the  Sabbath  Brancl>— The  Day  of  the  Sab- 
bath Fixed  by  Providence — The  Sabbath  Precept  Purely 
Moral — The  Assumption  Involved  in  the  Decalogue 
Abolishing  Theories — Effect  of  Said  Theories. 


CHAPTER  XX 
Sabbath  Legislation   ., 375 

The  Foundation  Principle — The  Sabbath  as  Fostering 
the  Elements  of  Good  Citizenship — Testimonies — Rela- 
tion of  the  Christian  Sabbath  to  Christian  Government — 
The  Sabbath  and  Man's  Physical  Welfare— The  Sabbath 
and  Man's  Intellectual  Welfare — The  Sabbath  and 
Man's  Social  Welfare — The  Sabbath  and  Man's  Moral 
and  Religious  Welfare — The  Proper  Extent  and  Limits 
of  Sabbath  Legislation — Relation  of  Sabbath  Laws  to 
Civil  and  Religious  Liberty — Relation  of  Sunday  Laws 
to  the  Saturday  Keeping  Sects — Some  Adventist  As- 
sertions Considered — The  Questions  of  "Separation  of 
Church  and  State"  and  "Religious  Liberty"— The  Right- 
ful Acknowledgment  by  the  State  of  God's  Authority — 
Sabbath  Laws  and  Marriage  Laws  Justified  on  the 
Same  Ground — The  Persecution  Argument  Considered 
— Adventist  Prophecy — Church  Union — A  Right  Rela- 
tion Argument — The  World  Chess  Game — The  Conti- 
nental Sunday  and  the  Anglo-American  Sunday — 
Three  Bible  Rules— The  True  Line  of  Sabbath  Reform 
— Christ's  Interpretation  of  the  Sabbath  Law — Sunday 
Traffic — Sunday  Labor — Sunday  Amusements. 

APPENDIX— The  Lying  Spirit 424 


(GE  :  Creation  Exodus) 


CHAPTER  I. 


THE   CKEATION   DAYS. 


Seventli-day  Adventists  teach  that  God  created 
the  heaven  and  the  earth  in  six  twenty-four  hour 
days;  that  the  weekly  cycle  then  started  has  never 
been  broken ;  and  that  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  is 
the  only  true  Sabbath  because  God  rested  on  the  sev- 
enth day  as  stated  in  Genesis  2  :  3. 

The  whole  question  as  to  whether  God  rested  on 
the  seventh  or  on  the  first  day  of  the  first  week  of 
time  depends  on  whether  time  began  with  the  first 
day  of  creation  or  with  the  first  time  measured  day 
of  man. 

If  the  creation  days  were  days  of  twenty-four 
hours,  and  therefore  not  different  from  time  days, 
they  would  be  a  part  of  measured  duration,  or  time  ; 
and  time  would  begin  with  the  first  day  of  creation. 
In  which  case,  God  rested  on  the  seventh  day  of  the 
first  week  of  time. 

But,  if  the  creation  days  were  indefinite  periods, 
as  is  now  most  generally  accepted,  they  cannot  be 
counted  as  a  part  of  time;  and  time,  of  necessity, 
began  with  the  first  time  measured  day  of  man.  In 
which  case,  God  rested  on  the  first  day  of  the  first 
week  of  time. 


20  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

We  see  then  that  the  twenty-four-hour  creation- 
day  theory  is  at  the  very  foundation  of  the  Advent- 
ists'  seventh  day  of  the  week  Sabbath  doctrine;  and 
both  must  stand  or  fall  together. 

Does  not  the  word  *^day"  literally  mean  twenty- 
four  hours'?  Not  necessarily,  neither  in  the  origi- 
nal, as  can  be  shown  by  any  Hebrew  lexicon,  nor  yet 
in  the  English,  as  for  example,  we  read  in  Gen.  2  :  4, 
*  ^  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of  the 
earth  when  they  were  created,  in  the  day  that  the 
Lord  God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens.''  Here 
God  created  the  earth  and  the  heavens  in  one  dav. 
But,  according  to  Genesis  1,  God  created  the  heaven 
and  the  earth  in  six  days.  Evidently  the  word 
^^day"  cannot  mean  twenty-four  hours  in  both 
cases. 

Even  Adventists  make  no  attempt  to  base  their 
twenty-four-hour  creation-day  theory  on  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  ^^day,"  but  on  the  expression,  ^Hhe 
evening  and  the  morning,"  which  occurs  in  connec- 
tion with  the  word  ^^day"  at  the  end  of  each  crea- 
tion-day record  in  Genesis  1. 

The  day  has,  in  the  rotation  of  the  earth,  a  definite 
time  marked  type  in  nature,  but  morning  and  even- 
ing have  no  definite  time  marked  type  in  nature ;  and 
therefore  the  words  ^^ morning"  and  ^^ evening"  are 
even  less  definite  than  the  word  ^^day."  We  speak 
of  the  *^ morning  of  life,"  and  of  the  ^^ evening  of 
life"  in  just  as  correct  a  sense  as  we  speak  of  the 
morning  and  the  evening  of  the  twenty-four  hour 
day. 

We  have  been  in  the  habit  from  childhood  of  asso- 


THE      CEEATION      DAYS  21 

elating  the  word  ^^day'^  with  the  twenty-four  hour 
cycle,  and  this  is  how  it  gets  its  twenty-four  hour 
meaning.  But,  ^^One  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a 
thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day.'' 
(2  Pet.  3  :  8.) 

In  the  same  way,  we  have  always  associated  the 
words  ^ ^morning"  and  ^^ evening''  with  the  twenty- 
four  hour  day,  and  that  is  how  they  get  their  time- 
limited  meaning.  If  we  lift  them  out  of  this  asso- 
ciation, they  have  no  definite  time  value.  In  a  gen- 
eral sense,  ^'morning"  means  the  first  or  early  part, 
and  *^ evening"  means  the  decline  or  latter  part. 
(See  Webster's  Unabridged  Dictionary.) 

The  general  sense  of  a  word  is  based  on  its  real  or 
inherent  meaning.  The  local  sense  of  a  word  is  the 
result  of  a  particular  application  of  its  real  or  inher- 
ent meaning.  There  is  danger  sometimes  of  con- 
fusing the  application  with  the  inherent  meaning  and 
accepting  the  application  for  the  meaning.  While 
the  application  should  always  be  in  harmony  with 
the  meaning,  yet  the  meaning  may  admit  of  a  wide 
application. 

This  is  the  case  with  the  words  ^^ morning"  and 
*^ evening."  Even  as  applied  to  the  twenty-four 
hour  day,  they  are  used  very  indefinitely.  In  their 
broadest  sense,  ^^ morning"  is  from  midnight  to  mid- 
day and  ^^ evening"  is  from  midday  to  midnight.  In 
a  more  limited  and  common  sense,  *^ morning"  is 
from  any  time  after  midnight,  or  from  early  rising 
to  sunrise,  and  ^^ evening"  is  from  sunset  to  bedtime, 
or  to  any  time  before  midnight.  Morning  cannot 
extend  beyond  midday,  or  evening  beyond  midnight, 
without  doing  violence  to  the  inherent  meaning  of 


22  SABBATU:      THEOLOGY 

the  words ;  for  the  inherent  sense  of  morning  is  the 
first  or  early  part,  and  the  inherent  sense  of  ^  ^  even- 
ing^' is  the  decline  or  latter  part.  The  morning 
always  refers  to  the  increasing  part  of  the  day,  and 
the  evening  always  refers  to  the  decreasing  part  of 
the  day — never  the  reverse. 

It  will  be  found  on  examination  that  every  refer- 
ence to  the  *^ morning''  and  the  *^ evening''  in  the 
Bible  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  inherent  mean- 
ing of  the  words. 

When  the  words  *^ morning"  and  *' evening"  are 
used  together  in  a  twenty-four  hour  sense,  they  are 
always  understood  to  mean  from  midnight  to  mid- 
night ;  the  morning  extending  from  midnight  to  mid- 
day, or  the  increasing  part  of  the  day,  as  the  word 
implies,  and  the  evening  extending  from  midday  to 
midnight  or  the  decreasing  part  of  the  day,  as  the 
word  implies.  Eeversing  the  words  would  not  affect 
the  limits  of  each,  and  therefore  *' evening"  and 
*  ^morning,"  if  used  in  a  twenty-four  hour  sense, 
must  mean  from  midday  to  midday.  No  other  mean- 
ing is  possible  by  reason  of  the  inherent  sense  of 
the  words  ^^ evening"  and  ^^ morning." 

Adventists  assume  that  the  expression,  ^^The  even- 
ing and  the  morning,"  in  Genesis  1,  means  from  sun- 
set to  sunset — the  evening  extending  from  sunset  to 
sunrise,  and  the  morning  extending  from  sunrise  to 
sunset, — thereby  making  the  evening  to  extend  past 
midnight  into  the  following  morning,  and  the  morn- 
ing to  extend  past  midday  into  the  following  even- 
ing, thus  positively  disregarding  the  inherent  mean- 
ing of  the  words.  We  must  give  Moses  credit  for 
using  the  words  in  their  proper  or  true  sense. 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  23 

The  expression,  ^'at  even,  wEen  tlie  snn  was  set," 
in  Mark  1  :  32,  implies  that  the  even  began  at  sun- 
set ;  but  that  it  did  not  extend  to  sunrise  is  shown  in 
the  35th  verse,  '^And  in  the  morning  rising  up  a 
great  while  before  day,  he  went  out,  and  departed 
into  a  solitary  place,  and  there  prayed."  There- 
fore morning  began  a  ^^ great  while  before  day." 
This  only  shows  that  the  Bible  uses  the  words 
*^even,"  or  evening,  and  *^ morning"  just  as  we  use 
them  to-day. 

The  expression,  ^^From  even  unto  even,"  in  Lev. 
23  :  32,  can,  and  undoubtedly  did,  mean  from  sunset 
to  sunset;  but  it  is  very  different  in  sense  from  the 
expression,  ^'The  evening  and  the  morning,"  in 
Genesis  1,  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  there  is  the 
slightest  connection  between  them.  ^^The  evening 
and  the  morning"  could,  in  a  limited  sense,  mean 
from  sunset  to  sunrise,  but  it  could  never  mean  from 
sunset  to  sunset  without  doing  violence  to  the  real 
sense  of  the  words;  for  ^'sunset  to  sunset"  includes 
a  portion  of  the  evening  sense  part  of  one  day,  and 
the  whole  of  the  morning  sense  part  and  a  portion 
of  the  evening  sense  part  of  the  next  day. 

Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  Moses 
never  intended  ^'the  evening  and  the  morning"  to  be 
interpreted  to  mean  from  ^'sunset  to  sunset,"  if  he 
had  the  slightest  regard  to  the  real  meaning  of  the 
words. 

The  command,  ^^In  the  ninth  day  of  the  month 
from  even  unto  even,  shall  ye  celebrate  your  Sab- 
bath, "  in  Lev.  23  :  32,  has  all  the  appearance  of  a 
command  first  given  in  which  some  new  feature  is 
introduced.    The  words  *'In  the  ninth  day  at  even" 


24  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

is  a  plain  recognition  of  the  fact  tliat  the  even  is  the 
end,  not  the  beginning,  of  the  natural  day.  Cele- 
brating the  Sabbath  ^^from  even  unto  even"  did  not 
change  the  natural  day.  Here,  not  Genesis  1,  is  the 
origin  of  the  sunset  to  sunset  method  of  reckoning 
time. 

In  Deut.  5  :  15  God  commands  the  Israelites  to  keep 
the  Sabbath  as  a  memorial  of  their  exodus  from 
Egypt.  The  memorial  events  of  the  Exodus  began 
with  the  preparations  of  the  evening  before.  It 
would  be  most  fitting  therefore  that  the  Sabbath,  as 
a  memorial  of  the  Exodus,  be  ^^from  even  unto 
even. ' '  Again,  sun-worship,  which  began  at  sunrise, 
was  the  chief  worship  with  which  the  Israelites  were 
surrounded.  In  no  other  way  could  the  Israelites' 
Sabbath  be  more  strikingly  contrasted  than  by  begin- 
ning it  at  sunset. 

If  God  has  the  power  to  change  the  time  of  the 
Sabbath  (which  Adventists  deny),  and  did  change  it, 
to  make  it  a  special  sign  between  Himself  and  the 
Israelites  to  distinguish  them  as  His  peculiar  peo- 
ple, could  He  not  change  the  hour  of  its  beginning 
as  easily  as  to  change  the  day?  And  would  he  not 
do  it,  if  thereby  it  would  be  a  more  distinguishing 
sign?  And  would  not  the  reasons  here  given  be 
satisfactory  and  natural  reasons  for  God's  com- 
manding the  Israelites  to  ^^ celebrate"  their  Sabbath 
^'from  even  unto  even!" 

Moreover,  the  inference  of  every  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture before  Lev.  23  :  32  that  carries  any  inference 
at  all  on  the  point,  is  that  the  day  began  with  the 
morning.  For  example,  Ex.  32  :  5,6,  Aaron  said, 
**  To-morrow  is  a  feast  to  the  Lord.    And  they  rose 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  25 

up  early  on  the  morrow/'  The  words  **rose  ap 
early''  shows  that  the  morrow  began  with  the  morn- 
ing. It  certainly  did  not  begin  at  sunset  before  they 
went  to  bed. 

The  Adventists  cannot  find  a  single  passage  of 
Scripture  between  Genesis  1  and  Lev.  23  :  32  that 
bears  the  slightest  inference  to  the  contrary;  so  that 
Genesis  1  and  Lev.  23  :  32  are  their  sole  dependence 
to  sustain  their  ^^ sunset  to  sunset"  theory.  The 
theory  is  based  only  on  a  mere  imaginary  resem- 
blance between  *^the  evening  and  the  morning"  in 
Genesis  1  and  ^^from  even  unto  even"  in  Lev.  23  :  32. 
But  if  the  same  meaning  was  intended  in  both 
cases,  we  can  be  quite  sure  that  at  least  equivalent 
expressions  w^ould  have  been  used. 

Adventists  further  attempt  to  sustain  their  sun- 
set to  sunset  theory  by  assuming  that  '^evening" 
means  night  and  ^^ morning"  means  day.  But  God 
called  the  darkness  Night  and  the  light  Day.  What 
authority  have  Adventists  for  changing  God's  de- 
finitions? Evening  and  darkness  are  quite  differ- 
ent definitions  for  night;  and  morning  and  light 
are  quite  different  definitions  for  day.  Adventists 
say  ^^Just  let  the  Bible  interpret  itself."  This  is 
one  example  of  how  they  *^just  let  the  Bible  inter- 
pret itself." 

The  expression,  ^^The  evening  and  the  morning" 
immediately  follows  God's  definitions  of  night  and 
day  in  Gen.  1  :  5.  This  fact  in  itself  increases  the 
presumption  in  assuming  that  *'the  evening  and 
the  morning"  means  the  *^ night  and  the  day;"  for 
the  closer  the  connection,  the  more  direct  the  con- 


26  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

tradiction.  Did  God  define  the  meaning  of  Night 
and  of  Day  and  immediately  ignore  those  defini- 
tions I  Do  we  go  to  a  dictionaiy  to  find  the  definition 
of  a  word  and  immediately  ignore  that  definition? 

We  read  in  Gen.  1  :  3-5,  ^^And  God  said,  Let  there 
be  light :  and  there  was  light.  And  God  saw  the  light 
that  it  was  good:  and  God  divided  the  light  from 
the  darkness.  And  God  called  the  light  Day,  and 
the  darkness  He  called  Night.  And  the  *  evening 
and  the  morning  were  the  first  day.'  '' 

The  word  ^^ light''  in  the  first  four  cases  is  clearly 
general  in  sense.  Then  there  can  be  no  good  reason 
for  not  giving  it  the  same  general  sense  in  the  re- 
maining case.  Darkness,  as  the  opposite  of  light, 
must  be  regarded  in  the  same  general  sense.  There- 
fore, Day  and  Night  are  merely  the  names  given  to 
light  and  darkness  in  the  general  sense  that  all 
light  is  day  and  all  darkness  night,  without  any 
reference  to  time.  There  are  people  living  within 
the  Arctic  Zone  where  the  day  in  the  summer  and 
the  night  in  the  winter  are  of  several  months  dura- 
tion. This  shows  that  the  day  or  the  night  is  only 
a  question  of  light  or  darkness,  and  time  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  it.  Therefore,  the  words  ''Night" 
and  ''Day"  in  Gen.  1  :  5  have  no  time  limiting  ef- 
fect on  the  expression,  "the  evening  and  the  morn- 
ing" which  immediately  follows. 

We  here  quote  from  J.  N.  Andrews  (Adventist), 
"And  now  He  separates  the  light  from  the  dark- 
ness. He  calls  the  one  day  and  the  other  night. 
This  is  why  in  the  divine  order  the  night  makes  the 
first  division  of  the  twenty-four  hours.  And  the 
Bible  informs  us  that  the  evening  and  the  morn- 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  27 

ing,  that  is,  the  night  and  the  clay,  were  the  first  day. 
This  is  a  decisive  proof  that  the  days  of  Mosaic 
record  were  such  days  as  an  evening  and  a  morn- 
ing constitute,  namely,  days  of  twenty-four  hours.'' 
{The  Sahhath  and  the  Law,  page  6). 

God  called  the  light  ^'Day''  and  the  darkness 
** Night,"  but  Mr.  Andrews  takes  it  on  himself  to 
change  God's  definitions;  for  he  says  that  ^^tlie 
evening  and  the  morning"  means  the  night  and  the 
day.  We  only  answer  this  presumption  by  pointing 
to  the  literal  meaning  of  the  words  ^'evening"  and 
*^ morning."  Adventists,  who  pose  as  the  cham- 
pions of  literal  interpretation,  should  not  object  to 
the  literal  meaning  of  the  words. 

He  says,  ^'This  is  why  in  the  divine  order  the 
night  makes  the  first  division  of  the  twenty-four 
hours."  But  we  fail  to  see  the  why  in  the  reason 
given,  for  God  named  the  *^Day"  first  when  He 
separated  the  light  from  the  darkness;  and  in  Jer. 
33  :  25,26,  He  points  to  the  immutability  of  His 
covenants  ^^with  day  and  night"  and  the  ** ordin- 
ances of  heaven  and  earth."  Thus,  in  God's  coven- 
ant in  nature,  the  day  is  put  first.  Where  then  does 
Mr.  Andrews  draw  his  inference  that  God  ordained 
the  night  to  be  the  first  division  of  the  twenty-four 
hours? — Evidently,  from  the  expression,  ^^The  even- 
ing and  the  morning,"  by  assuming  that  it  means 
^Hhe  night  and  the  day,"  in  direct  contradiction  to 
God's  own  definitions. 

Mr.  Andrews  should  have  backed  up  his  asser- 
tion, that  ^'in  the  divine  order  the  night  makes  the 
first  division  of  the  twenty-four  hours,"  by  stating 
where  the  Bible  ordains  such  a  division;  for  no 


28  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

division  is  binding  without  a  command  to  make  it 
binding.  The  mere  fact  that  darkness  naturally 
existed  before  light  was  created  is  hardly  equivalent 
to  a  command.  There  is  no  command  making  such 
a  division  binding.  But  he  probably  assumes  that 
the  expression  ^Hhe  evening  and  the  morning"  is 
the  equivalent  of  such  a  command.  We  see  then 
that  one  assumption  is  based  upon  another  in  an 
all  too  evident  effort  to  sustain  the  sunset  to  sun- 
set theory. 

The  fact  that  God  separated  the  light  from  the 
darkness  Mr.  Andrews  gives  as  the  reason  why  God 
ordained  the  night  to  be  the  first  division  of  the 
twenty-four  hours.  He  evidently  infers  that  God 
put  the  night  before  the  day  to  commemorate  the 
fact  that  darkness  existed  before  the  light. 

If  this  was  God's  purpose,  He  surely  would  have 
selected  a  more  suitable  tjipe  than  the  sunset  to 
sunset  day,  which  begins  with  the  light  at  sunset. 
The  midnight  to  midnight  day  would  be  a  much 
more  fitting  memorial  type,  for  it  begins  with  mid- 
night darkness;  and  only  midnight  darkness  is  a 
fit  type  of  the  darkness  that  existed  before  light 
was  created.  Thus  the  sunset  to  sunset  day  lacks 
the  essential  element  necessary  to  make  it  a  fit  type ; 
but  the  midnight  to  midnight  day  contains  the  es- 
sential element, — the  darkness  at  the  ending  being 
but  the  necessary  leading  back  to  the  typical  dark- 
ness with  which  the  next  day  begins. 

The  natural  day,  and  hence  the  God  appointed  day 
"(for  God  is  the  God  of  nature),  is  from  midnight  to 
midnight.  Day,  according  to  the  Bible,  is  only  God's 
name  for  light  (Gen.  1  :  5)  and  the  light  practically 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  29 

begins  and  ends  at  midnight,  so  far  as  its  increasing 
and  decreasing  limits  extend.  Therefore  the  day, 
in  the  sense  of  a  recurrence  of  light,  must  increase 
and  decrease  with  the  light  and  so  extend  from 
midnight  to  midnight. 

Thus  God  has  fixed  immutably  in  nature  the  mid- 
night to  midnight  day;  and  hence  the  Adventists' 
^^ sunset  to  sunset'^  theory  is  only  a  thinking  ^Ho 
change"  God's  time  order  in  nature. 

Morning  and  evening  in  a  twenty-four  hour  sense 
mean  from  midnight  to  midnight ;  hence,  if  the  crea- 
tion days  were  days  of  twenty-four  hours,  Moses 
would  certainly  have  said,  *^The  morning  and  the 
evening  was  the  first  day;"  and  the  statement  that 
^Hhe  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first  day," 
which  Mr.  Andrews  seems  to  think  is  decisive  proof 
that  the  creation  days  were  twenty-four  hour  days, 
we  propose  to  show  in  decisive  proof  that  they  were 
not  twenty-four  hour  days. 

We  admit  that  the  expression,  *^The  evening  and 
the  morning"  must  and  does  define  the  creation 
days  in  some  sense.  There  are  only  two  possible 
senses  in  which  it  can  do  so;  one  is  the  duration 
sense,  and  the  other  is  the  change  of  condition  sense : 
for  there  are  only  two  considerations  involved  in 
the  Creation;  one  is  the  duration  consideration,  the 
other  is  the  change  of  condition  consideration. 

It  is  the  change  of  condition,  not  the  duration  in- 
volved in  each  creation  day,  that  constitutes  the  fact 
of  Creation;  and  the  fact  is  the  only  consideration 
worthy  of  notice.  For  whether  the  Creation  took 
place  in  six  twenty-four  hour  days  or  in  a  million 


30  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

years  cannot  cliange  tlie  fact  in  tlie  slightest  de- 
gree, and  we  can  be  sure  tliat  Inspiration  dealt  with 
the  one  only  important  consideration — that  on  which 
the  fact  of  creation  rests. 

1. — To  prove  that  Moses  (or  Inspiration)  did  not 
have  the  duration  of  the  creation  days  in  mind,  we 
call  special  attention  to  the  significance  of  the 
reversed  order  of  the  words  ^'morning''  and  ^'even- 
ing'' in  the  expression,  ^^The  evening  and  the  morn- 
ing. ' '  Morning  means  the  first  or  early  part :  even- 
ing means  the  decline  or  latter  part.  The  first  or 
early  part  of  anything  must,  in  the  very  nature  of 
things,  be  before  the  decline  or  latter  part:  a  day 
cannot  decline  before  it  has  had  a  beginning,  or  first 
part.  Anything  involving  duration  must  have  a 
beginning  or  first  part  before  it  can  have  an  ending 
or  last  part.  Therefore  the  natural  order  would 
be  morning  and  evening. 

Now,  if  the  natural  order  of  the  words  *^  morning 
and  evening '^  express  a  definite  day,  then  their  re- 
verse order  expresses  the  reverse  of  a  definite  day, 
i.  e.,  an  indefinite  day,  or  period.  The  very  reversed 
order  in  ^Hhe  evening  and  the  morning"  makes  the 
expression  indefinite  because  without  definite  be- 
ginning and  ending,  in  that  the  natural  beginning 
and  ending  are  reversed. 

A  natural  day  must  have  a  first  part,  or  morning 
before  it  can  have  a  latter  part,  or  evening.  Would 
God,  who  is  the  God  of  nature,  contradict  Himself 
by  reversing  the  order  of  nature?  Would  the  God 
of  nature  prefer  an  order  contrary  to  nature  and  put 
the  end  before  the  beginning,  or  else  join  the  latter 
half  of  one  day  to  the  first  half  of  the  next  and  call 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  31 

them  a  dajl  Did  God  begin  the  first  day  with  the  lat- 
ter half  of  a  preceding  unrecorded  day?  Then  what 
became  of  the  first  half  of  that  unrecorded  day  I 

This  is  the  unavoidable  tangle  involved  in  the  ex- 
pression, ^'The  evening  and  the  morning,"  if  we 
try  to  give  a  definite  time  measure  meaning  to  it; 
for  we  must  credit  Moses  with  using  the  words  in 
their  proper  sense, — surely  not  in  the  exact  reverse 
of  their  proper  sense, — and  it  is  impossible  to  get 
away  from  the  fact  that  ^^ evening"  means  the 
decline  or  latter  part  and  ^^ morning"  means  the  first 
or  early  part. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  that  Moses  reversed  the 
natural  order  of  the  words  ^^ morning"  and  ^^ even- 
ing" for  the  very  purpose  of  reversing  their  ordinary 
time  measuring  sense,  to  indicate  that  the  creation 
days  were  indefinite  periods. 

2. — To  prove  that  Moses  had  in  mind  the  change 
of  condition  involved  in  the  creation  days,  w^e  call 
special  attention  to  the  fact,  that,  though  ^ '  the  even- 
ing and  the  morning"  is  the  reverse  order  in  the 
time  measuring  sense,  yet  it  is  the  natural  order  in 
the  change  of  condition  sense;  for  each  creation- 
day,  even  were  it  a  million  years,  involves  first  the 
gradual  decreasing  or  passing  away  of  a  former  con- 
dition, and  second  the  gradual  increasing  or  com- 
ing in  of  a  new  condition.  The  old  condition  must 
first  pass  away  to  give  place  to  the  new.  Evening 
fitly  expresses  the  decreasing,  passing  away,  or  de- 
cline of  the  old  condition;  and  morning  fitly  ex- 
presses the  coming  in,  or  increasing  of  the  new  con- 
dition. Hence,  ^^The  evening  and  the  morning"  is 
the  natural  order  in  the  change  of  condition  sense. 


32  SABBATH       THEOLOGY 

Again,  we  call  special  attention  to  tlie  fact  that 
the  literal  rendering,  as  shown  by  the  marginal  refer- 
ence, is  '^The  evening  was  and  the  morning  was  the 
first  day ; '  ^  or,  which  is  the  same,  ^ '  The  evening  was 
the  first  day  and  the  morning  was  the  first  day." 
The  sense  of  which  would  be  that  the  evening  and 
the  morning  each  was  the  entire  day. 

This  completely  destroys  the  time  measuring,  half 
and  half,  sense  of  the  words  ^'evening''  and  ^^ morn- 
ing,'' but  harmonizes  perfectly  with  their  change 
of  condition  sense ;  for  the  Creation  would  naturally 
involve  a  gradual  and  continual  change  of  condi- 
tion, and  each  complete  change  of  condition  would 
mark  the  period  of  a  day.  The  condition  prevail- 
ing at  the  beginning  of  each  day  would  gradually 
decrease  to  the  end  of  the  day,  and  the  new  con- 
dition commencing  at  the  beginning  of  each  day 
would  gradually  increase  to  the  end  of  the  day.  The 
former  condition  gradually  giving  place  to  the  lat- 
ter, so  that  the  latter  increases  as  the  former  de- 
creases, and  thus  each  was  the  entire  day. 

Therefore,  the  literal  rendering,  ^^The  evening 
was  and  the  morning  was  the  first  day,"  plainly 
shows  that  the  evening  and  the  morning  were  not 
separate  halves  of  the  day  but  each  was  the  entire 
day :  the  evening  in  a  decreasing  sense,  as  the  word 
implies,  and  the  morning  in  an  increasing  sense,  as 
the  word  implies, — such  as  a  gradual  change  of  con- 
dition from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  each  Crea- 
tion day  would  involve.  (The  revised  version  also 
gives  the  same  sense.) 

The  condition  at  the  beginning  of  the  first  day  of 
Creation  was  total  darkness;  but  God  spake  forth 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  83 

the  light  and  divided  the  light  from  the  darkness:' 
this  made  a  complete  change  of  condition  and  was 
the  first  day.  God  made  the  firmament,  or  atmos- 
phere, and  divided  the  waters  below  from  the  waters 
above :  this  made  another  complete  change  of  condi- 
tion, and  was  the  second  day.  God  gathered  the 
waters  together,  and  made  the  dry  land  to  appear 
and  covered  it  with  verdure:  another  complete 
change  of  condition,  or  the  third  day.  God  cleared 
the  sky,  and  made  the  greater  and  the  lesser  lights 
and  the  stars  to  appear:  another  complete  change 
of  condition,  or  the  fourth  day.  God  filled  the  waters 
with  fish,  and  the  air  with  fowls:  another  complete 
change  of  condition,  or  the  fifth  day.  Lastly,  God 
filled  the  land  with  all  manner  of  animal  life,  end- 
ing in  the  creation  of  man :  another  complete  change 
of  condition,  or  the  sixth  day.  These  changes  were 
not  a  question  of  duration  but  of  condition. 

The  indefinite  period  creation-day  theory  thus 
points  out  the  necessary  or  natural  order  of  crea- 
tion, and  the  distinct  phases  of  its  development.  A 
simpler  division  could  not  have  been  made.  The  six 
changes  of  condition  were  necessary  to  make  the 
earth  a  fit  abode  for  man. 

Perhaps  some  may  think  that  the  third  and  fifth 
creation  days  embraced  two  separate  and  distinct 
changes  of  condition,  and  therefore  might  have  been 
sub-divided.  Thus,  on  the  third  day,  the  gather- 
ing of  the  waters  together  and  the  appearing  of 
the  dry  land  might  be  considered  one  distinct 
change  of  condition,  and  the  covering  of  the  dry 
land  with  grass,  herbs,  and  trees,  another  distinct 
change  of  condition.    But  it  will  be  conceded  that 


34  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

these  two  clianges  would  naturally  take  place  almost, 
if  not  quite,  simultaneously,  for  the  dry  land  began 
to  appear,  no  doubt,  very  early  in  the  day,  and  as 
soon  as  it  appeared  the  conditions  of  plant  life  be- 
gan to  exist:  and  the  very  existence  of  the  condi- 
tions of  plant  life  may,  in  a  very  true  sense,  be  re- 
garded as  God's  voice  calling  plant  life  into  exist- 
ence. Therefore  the  two  changes  of  condition  are 
practically  one  as  regards  duration.  Similarly,  the 
two  clianges  of  condition  mentioned  in  the  fifth  day 
were  doubtless  practically  one  as  regards  duration. 

We  cannot  doubt  the  fact  of  Creation  because  it 
is  ever  before  our  eyes.  The  fact  naturally  calls 
forth  an  inquiry  as  to  its  origin,  for  it  must  of  neces- 
sity have  an  origin,  and  there  evidently  can  be  but 
one  true  explanation  of  its  origin. 

The  Bible  is  the  record  of  God's  dealings  with 
man,  and  it  is  but  fitting  that  it  be  prefaced  by  the 
true  account  of  man's  origin  and  the  origin  of  all 
things  on  which  his  existence  depends,  thus  leading 
back  to  the  true  beginning  in  God,  and  setting  forth 
the  relation  existing  between  God  and  man. 

The  question  arises,  Did  Moses  write  the  Crea- 
tion account  by  inspired  discernment  or  by  direct 
revelation?  The  statement  will  hardly  be  ques- 
tioned that  God  does  nothing  that  is  unnecessary. 
If  Moses  could  have  written  the  account  by  inspired 
discernment,  then  a  direct  revelation  was  not  neces- 
sary. By  a  study  of  the  Creation  account  it  will  be 
seen  that  it  is  a  simple  statement  of  the  natural  and 
inevitable  changes  of  condition  that  must  of  very 
necessity  have  taken  place  during  the  process  of  the 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  35 

earth's  development.  These  changes  of  condition 
and  their  order  were  all  within  the  range  of  inspired 
discernment;  but  the  exact  duration  of  each  change 
was  entirely  beyond  the  range  of  inspired  discern- 
ment and,  if  revealed  at  all,  must  have  been  re- 
vealed by  direct  revelation.  Therefore,  if  Moses 
wrote  by  inspired  discernment,  he  could  only  have 
had  in  mind  the  changes  of  condition  involved  in 
the  Creation;  for  he  could  not  have  discerned  the 
exact  duration  of  each  change  by  any  process  of 
reason  though  quickened  by  inspiration. 

If  it  were  not  necessary  for  man  to  know  the  ex- 
act duration  of  each  creation-day,  that  fact  would  be 
proof  that  God  did  not  reveal  it,  on  the  principle 
that  God  does  nothing  that  is  unnecessary. 

The  creation  days  were  before  man  was  created, 
hence  the  knowledge  of  their  duration  is  beyond  the 
reach  of  man's  testimony,  and  therefore  wholly 
within  God's  OAvn  power.  Christ  said,  ^^It  is  not  for 
vou  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons  which  the 
Father  hath  put  in  His  own  pov/er"  (Acts  1  :  7). 
The  knowdedge  could  not  alter  the  result  of  the  Crea- 
tion one  iota.  Then  what  benefit  could  it  be  to  man? 
What  purpose  then  could  God  have  in  revealing  it! 
— for  he  does  nothing  without  a  purpose. 

The  second  account  of  Creation  begins  thus: 
*' These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and  of 
the  earth  when  they  were  created,  in  the  day  that 
the  Lord  God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens." 
(Gen.  2  :  4). 

Here  the  earth  and  the  heavens  were  created  in 
one   day,  but  according  to   Genesis   1,   they  were 


36  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

created  in  six  days.  The  word  ^^day"  cannot  mean 
twenty-four  hours  in  both  places.  How  then  can 
we  know  that  it  means  twenty-four  hours  in  either 
place!  Certainly  not  by  the  expression  *^The  even- 
ing and  the  morning/'  which,  as  we  have  shown 
argues  only  the  reverse. 

Adventists  seem  to  avoid  this  second  account ;  but 
it  is  in  the  Bible,  and  is  therefore  just  as  authentic 
as  the  account  in  Genesis  1.  Can  Adventists  har- 
monize the  two  accounts  by  their  twenty-four  hour 
creation-day  theory? — Hardly. 

We  see  that  the  word  *^day''  in  the  second  ac- 
count covers  the  entire  six  days  of  the  first  account. 
Therefore,  ** generations"  in  the  second  account 
must  correspond  to  the  days  of  creation  in  the  first 
account.  But  if  the  days  of  creation  in  the  first  ac- 
count were  twenty-four  hours  each,  then  the  ^^gen- 
erations'' in  the  second  account  must  be  twenty- 
four  hours  each.  Can  any  one  believe  that  Moses 
intended  to  convey  the  meaning  of  twenty-four  hours 
by  the  word  *  *  generation?' '  Yet  this  is  what  Adven- 
tists must  assume. 

Turn  now  to  the  90th  Psalm,  and  notice  first, 
that  it  was  written  by  Moses,  as  seen  by  the  title. 
In  the  4th  verse  he  says,  *^For  a  thousand  years  in 
Thy  sight  are  but  as  yesterday  when  it  is  past,  and 
as  a  watch  in  the  night."  Notice  too,  that  these 
words  were  called  forth  by  an  immediate  reference 
to  the  Creation,  for  we  read  in  the  2nd  verse,  **  Be- 
fore the  mountains  were  brought  forth,  or  ever 
Thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the  w^orld,  even 
from  everlasting  to  everlasting  Thou  art  God." 

Now  try  to  imagine  Moses — with  the  Creation  in 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  37 

mind  and  the  twenty-four  hour  conception  of  the 
creation-days — exclaiming,  ^^For  a  thousand  years 
in  Thy  sight  are  but  as  yesterday  when  it  is  past, 
and  as  a  watch  in  the  night !'^  The  absurdity  is 
apparent.  That  Moses  regarded  a  day  in  God's 
sight  as  an  indefinite  period  is  clearly  inferred  from 
these  words. 

Inspiration  cannot  contradict  itself,  and  there- 
fore Inspiration  did  not  give  Moses  one  conception 
of  a  day  in  God 's  sight  in  Genesis  1  and  a  different 
conception  in  Psalms  90  :  4. 

Now  read  the  2nd  verse  again,  *^  Before  the  moun- 
tains were  bi^ought  forth  or  ever  Thou  hadst  formed 
the  earth  and  the  world,  even  from  everlasting  to 
everlasting.  Thou  art  God."  Note  the  three  steps 
and  the  sequence  involved,  and  that  the  very  sense 
of  the  sequence  requires  that  each  step  leads  up  to 
a  point  where  the  next  begins  and,  that  the  final  step 
or  climax — ^^even  from  everlasting  to  everlasting," 
etc. — begins,  as  the  word  ^^even"  infers,  at  the  point 
w^here  imagination  can  go  no  farther ;  thus  implying 
that  the  preceding  step,  or  the  Creation  reference, 
has  already  carried  the  thought  up  to  this  point. 

Moses  is  here  trying  to  give  a  conception  of  the 
everlasting  nature  of  God  by  pointing  out  that  He 
existed  before  the  farthest  reach  of  the  imagina- 
tion. The  fact  that  he  used  a  reference  to  the  Crea- 
tion to  lead  up  to  this  climax  shows  that,  to  his 
mind,  the  Creation  thought  carried  the  imagination 
to  its  farthest  limit,  and  was  therefore  a  fit  pre- 
lude to  lead  up  to  the  thought  of  the  everlasting 
nature  of  God.  If  the  Creation  reference  meant 
only  a  span  of  six  twenty-four  hour  days — before 


38  BABBATH      THEO^jOGY^ 

wliicli  God  existed — it  would  not  only  liave  weak- 
ened tlie  force  of  the  sequence,  but  would  have  been 
a  very  tame  prelude  to  lead  up  to  the  climax,  as  it 
would  not  have  required  the  slightest  effort  of  the 
imagination. 

When  we  take  into  consideration,  therefore,  the 
thought  which  Moses  wished  to  bring  out  in  using 
the  creation  reference,  we  may  be  quite  certain  that 
to  his  mind  it  involved  a  far-reaching  conception. 
Only  such  a  conception  could  have  caused  him  to  ex- 
claim in  the  4th  verse,  ^'For  a  thousand  years  in 
Thy  sight  are  but  as  yesterday  when  it  is  past,  and 
as  a  watch  in  the  night ! ' ' 

Again,  when  Moses  had  occasion  to  refer  to  ^Hhe 
days  that  are  past,'^  he  was  very  careful  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  the  creation-days  by  specifying 
that  they  were  ^  ^  since  the  day  that  God  created  man 
upon  the  earth;''  for  we  read  in  Deut.  4  :  32,  ^'For 
ask  now  of  the  days  that  are  past,  which  were  be- 
fore thee,  since  the  day  that  God  created  man  upon 
the  earth."  In  the  expression,  *^ Since  the  day  that 
God  created  man  upon  the  earth"  the  word  ^^day" 
evidently  refers  to  the  sixth  day  of  creation  on  which 
man  was  created,  and  is  not  included  in  ^^the  days 
that  are  past"  which  are  since  that  time. 

Here  Moses  clearly  does  not  include  the  days  of 
creation  with  ^Hhe  days  that  are  past."  If  the  days 
of  creation  were  days  of  twenty-four  hours,  and 
therefore  not  different  from  time  days,  there  would 
be  no  good  reason  for  not  including  them  in  the  ^'the 
days  that  are  past;"  but  if  the  creation  days  were 
indefinite  periods,  they  could  not  be  included  in  ^'the 
days  that  are  past."     The  very  fact  that  Moses 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  39 

did  not  include  them  in  ^Hhe  days  that  are  past'^  is 
strong  evidence  that  he  did  not  regard  them  as  days 
of  twenty-four  hours,  but  as  indefinite  periods,  be- 
longing to  eternity  and  not  to  time,  and  therefore 
could  not  be  included  in  ^^the  days  that  are  past/' 
At  least  he  did  not  presume,  as  Adventists  do,  to 
measure  God's  days  by  man's  twenty-four  hour 
standard. 

Adventists  may  say  that  Moses  here  referred  only 
)to  that  portion  of  ^Hhe  days  that  are  past"  which 
belongs  to  man's  time  because  the  questions  that 
'follow  refer  only  to  man.  But  why  then  did  he 
specify  at  all?  Would  six  twenty-four  hour  days 
make  any  material  difference?  Would  Moses  speci- 
fy so  particularly  just  to  separate  2,500  years  of 
365  days  each  from  six  days  of  the  same  kind? 

We  may  substitute  the  antecedent  of  a  pronoun 
for  the  pronoun.  Now  substitute  ^Hhe  days  that 
are  past"  for  the  pronoun  ** which,"  the  passage 
will  then  read,  ^^The  days  that  are  past  were  before 
thee,  since  the  day  that  God  created  man  upon  the 
earth."  The  phrase  ^'before  thee"  defines  the  lat- 
ter end  of  *Hhe  days  that  are  past"  and  may  there- 
fore be  omitted  since  it  has  no  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion concerning  the  beginning  of  time ;  and  the  pas- 
sage then  becomes  a  positive  declaration  that  ^^The 
days  that  are  past  were  since  the  day  that  God 
created  man  upon  the  earth."  A  more  direct  and 
positive  statement  would  be  impossible. 

Thus  a  grammatical  analysis  of  the  passage 
makes  its  meaning  unmistakable.  To  insist  on  the 
theory  that  time  began  with  the  first  day  of  crea- 
tion, in  the  face  of  this  positive  statement  to  the 


40  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

contrary,  is  to  put  a  man  conceived  theory  above 
the  inspired  word  of  God. 

Returning  to  Dent.  4  :  32,33,  we  read  further, 
*^For  ask  now  of  the  days  that  are  past,  which  were 
before  thee,  since  the  dav  that  God  created  man 
upon  the  earth,  and  ask  from  one  side  of  heaven 
unto  the  other  whether  there  hath  been  any  such 
thing  as  this  great  thing  is,  or  hath  been  heard  like 
it !  Did  ever  people  hear  the  voice  of  God  speaking 
out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  as  thou  hast  heard,  and 
live?'' 

Moses  here  refers  directly  to  God's  speaking  the 
Ten  Commandments  in  the  hearing  of  the  people; 
and  in  those  Ten  Commandments  are  the  words, 
*^For  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth," 
etc.  This  is  the  only  reference  to  the  creation  days 
in  the  Ten  Commandments.  Moses  then  did  not 
count  the  creation  days  as  a  part  of  time  when  mak- 
ing a  direct  reference  to  the  Ten  Commandments. 
Then  are  the  creation  days  to  be  counted  as  a  part 
of  time  in  the  only  reference  to  the  creation  days  in 
the  Ten  Commandments? 

The  fourth  commandment  says,  '^Six  days  shalt 
thou  labor  and  do  all  thy  work,''  etc.,  and  the  reason 
appended  is,  ^^For  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven 
and  earth,"  etc.  Adventists  say  that  if  *^day" 
means  twenty-four  hours  in  one  place  it  must  also 
mean  twenty-four  hours  in  the  other. 

The  answer  is  that  the  word  ^^day"  is  not  used 
in  the  same  sense  in  both  places.  In  the  first  place 
it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  copy;  in  the  second  place 
it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  model  or  pattern.  The  first 
are  man's  days  to  be  measured  by  man's  twenty- 


THE       CEEATION      DAYS  41 

four  hour  standard:  the  second  are  God^s  days 
to  be  measured  by  God's  standard  (2  Pet.  3:8; 
Ps.  90  :  4).  Besides,  Moses  himself  drew  a  line  be- 
tween God's  creation  days  and  man's  time  days  in 
a  still  closer  connection  in  Deut.  4  :  32;  and  thus 
Deut.  4  :  32  furnishes  the  key  to  the  distinction  be- 
tween man's  time  days  in  the  fourth  commandment 
and  God's  creation  days  in  the  reason  appended. 

The  Creation  week  is  the  model,  and  man's  week 
is  the  copy.  The  copy  may  be  on  a  very  small  scale 
as  compared  to  the  model,  and  yet  be  a  true  copy 
or  imitation.  The  model  expressed  in  the  copy  is 
merely  God's  thought  expressed  in  terms  of  man's 
thought. 

Now  sum  up  the  testimony  of  Moses : — 

1. — ^'The  evening  and  the  morning  were  the  first 
day." — Gen.  1   :  5. 

2. — *^  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heavens  and 
of  the  earth  when  they  were  created,  in  the  day  that 
the  Lord  God  made  the  earth  and  the  heavens." — 
Gen.  2  :  4. 

3. — ^^For  a  thousand  years  in  Thy  sight  are  but 
as  yesterday  when  it  is  past,  and  as  a  watch  in  the 
night." — Ps.  90  :  4.  (Immediately  preceded  by  a 
reference  to  the  Creation  in  verse  2.) 

4. — *^For  ask  now  of  the  days  that  are  past,  which 
were  before  thee,  since  the  day  that  God  created 
man  upon  the  earth." — Deut.  4  :  32.  (Immediately 
followed  by  a  reference  to  the  giving  of  the  Law; 
which  includes  the  fourth  commandment.) 

These  passages  must  harmonize  or  make  Inspira- 
tion through  Moses  contradict  itself. 


42  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

In  the  first  two  passages  it  is  evident  that  the 
word  ^^day''  cannot  mean  twenty-four  hours  in  both, 
so  that  to  base  the  twenty-four  hour  creation  day 
theory  on  the  meaning  of  the  word  '^day'^  is  already 
rendered  impossible  at  the  start. 

The  expression  ^^The  evening  and  the  morning'' 
is  therefore  the  Adventists'  only  hope.  But  the 
very  reversing  of  the  natural  order  of  the  words 
*^ morning''  and  *^ evening,"  taken  in  connection 
with  their  literal  meaning,  indicates  that  Moses  re- 
versed them  for  the  very  purpose  of  expressing  an 
indefinite  period;  and  their  reverse  order  taken  in 
connection  with  the  literal  rendering — ^^The  even- 
ing was  and  the  morning  was" — shows  that  Moses 
meant  a  change  of  condition  instead  of  duration,  as 
already  shown. 

The  third  passage  shows  that  a  day  in  God's  sight 
has  no  definite  time  value,  but  is  merely  a  type,  and 
taken  in  connection  with  the  reference  to  the  crea- 
tion in  the  second  verse,  shows  that  Moses  did  not 
measure  God's  days  by  man's  twenty-four  hour 
standard. 

Finally,  in  the  fourth  passage,  Moses  does  not  in- 
clude the  Creation  days  in  ^  ^  the  days  that  are  past ; ' ' 
thus  showing  that  he  did  not  regard  the  Creation 
days  as  a  part  of  time. 

Thus  we  see  that  these  four  passages  from  Moses 
harmonize  perfectly  according  to  the  indefinite  peri- 
od Creation-day  theory.  Can  Adventists  harmonize 
them  by  their  twenty-four  hour  Creation-day  the- 
ory? It  is  evidently  impossible.  Can  there  then  be 
any  doubt  which  is  the  correct  theory? 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  43 

Turn  now  to  2.  Pet.  3  :  8,  ''One  day  is  with  the 
Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as 
one  day. ' '  The  evident  meaning  of  which  is  that  the 
day  in  God's  sight  has  no  definite  time  value. 

Now  notice  particularly  that  here  too  these  words 
were  called  forth  by  an  immediate  reference  to  Crea- 
tion. Begin  at  the  3rd  verse  and  read,  ''Knowing 
this  first,  that  there  shall  come  in  the  last  days  scof- 
fers, walking  after  their  own  lusts,'  and  saying, 
Where  is  the  promise  of  his  coming?  for  since  the 
fathers  fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as  they  were 
from  the  beginning  of  the  Creation.  For  this  they 
willingly  are  ignorant  of,  that  by  the  word  of  God 
the  heavens  were  of  old,  and  the  earth  standing  out 
of  the  water  and  in  the  water:  whereby  the  world 
that  then  was,  being  overflowed  with  water,  per- 
ished :  but  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  which  are  now, 
by  the  same  word,  are  kept  in  store,  reserved  unto 
fire  against  the  day  of  judgment  and  perdition  of 
ungodly  men.  But,  beloved,  be  not  ignorant  of  this 
one  thing,  that  one  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thou- 
sand years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day. ' ' 

It  is  here  plainly  stated  that  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  were  (created)  by  the  word  of  God  and  are 
now  kept  and  reserved  by  the  same  word.  Both  the 
creation  and  the  keeping  are  by  the  same  word.  The 
two  thoughts  are  set  in  direct  contrast ;  and  since  it 
takes  both  thoughts  to  make  the  contrast,  therefore, 
Peter  could  not  have  had  one  thought  without  the 
other  in  mind  when  he  said,  "One  day  is  with  the 
Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as 
one  day."  This  then  shows  Peter's  conception  of 
the  creation  days,  as  well  as  the  keeping  days;  and 


44  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

the  admonition  ^'Beloved  he  not  ignorant  of  this  one 
thing/'  shows  the  importance  which  he  attached  to 
it. 

This  expression  of  Peter's,  and  the  similar  ex- 
pression of  Moses  in  Psalms  90  :  4,  were  both  called 
forth  by  a  contemplation  of  the  Creation.  Now  the 
contemplation  of  a  six  twenty-fonr-hour-day  Crea- 
tion simply  could  not  have  called  forth  these 
expressions. 

Since  the  creation  days  were  before  man's  days, 
they  are  in  an  entire  sense  God's  days,  and  thus 
separate  and  distinct  from  man's  days.  God  has 
by  inspiration  (2  Pet.  3:8;  Ps.  90  :  4)  clearly  made 
known  the  indefinite  value  (in  a  time  sense)  of  the 
day  in  His  sight.  This  then  is  the  measure  of  God 's 
days.  For  in  the  mind  of  the  Eternal  Creator  of 
the  universe,  duration  is  not  measured  by  the  rota- 
tion of  one  small  planet. 

In  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  the  measure  of 
the  earth's  rotation,  or  twenty-four  hours,  can  only 
measure  time  on  the  earth  and  in  the  mind  of  man ; 
for  it  is  only  the  mind  of  man,  not  the  mind  of  God 
(aside  from  His  dealings  with  man),  that  takes  ac- 
count of  it,  as  clearly  shown  in  2  Pet.  3  :  8  and 
Ps.  90  :  4.  Therefore  it  cannot  be  the  measure  of 
the  creation  days  before  there  was  a  mind  of  man 
to  take  account  of  it. 

God  undoubtedly  recognizes  the  fact  that  the 
twenty-four  day  is  the  most  natural  measure  of  time 
for  man's  use,  and  He  undoubtedly  recognizes  man's 
days,  but  only  in  His  dealings  with  man  and  be- 
cause of  His  dealings  with  man,  while  in  His  own 


THE       CEEATION      DAYS  45 

private  counsel  He  still  maintains  His  own  reckon- 
ing regardless  of  man's  twenty-four  hour  measure. 
This  is  clear  from  2  Pet.  3  :  7-9 ;  for  the  present  and 
the  future  are  involved  in  the  keeping  in  store  men- 
tioned in  verse  7,  and  this  was  what  Peter  had  im- 
mediately in  mind  when  he  said,  *^One  day  is  with 
the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years 
as  one  day." 

Again,  in  verse  9,  he  says,  ^^The  Lord  is  not 
slack  concerning  His  promise,  as  some  men  count 
slackness;  but  is  long  suffering  to  usward,  not  will- 
ing that  any  should  perish,  but  that  all  should  come 
to  repentance.''  The  reason  then  that  the  Lord 
delays  the  promise  of  His  coming  is  because  He  is 
unwilling  that  any  should  perish ;  and  the  slackness 
concerning  His  promised  coming  is  only  apparent, 
because  of  the  fact  that  He  does  not  count  time  as 
man  counts,  for,  ''One  day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a 
thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day." 

So  we  see  that  while  God  recognizes  man's  days 
in  His  dealings  with  man,  yet  in  His  own  private 
counsel  He  maintains  His  own  separate  reckoning. 

We  have  certainly  established  more  than  a  doubt 
in  regard  to  the  truth  of  the  twenty-four  hour  crea- 
tion-day theory.  But  if  we  had  done  nothing  more 
than  to  establish  a  doubt,  it  would  be  presumption, 
in  the  face  of  that  doubt,  to  apply  positively  man's 
twenty-four  hour  measure  to  the  creation  days, 
which,  in  their  very  nature,  belong  to  God's  own 
private  counsel. 

Note  the  presumption  implied  in  God's  challenge, 
' '  Who  is  this  that  darkeneth  counsel  by  words  with- 
out knowledge?  Gird  up  now  thy  loins  like  a  man; 


46  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

for  I  will  demand  of  tliee,  and  answer  thou  me. 
Where  wast  thou  when  I  laid  the  foundations  of  the 
earth?  Declare,  if  thou  hast  understanding.  Who 
hath  laid  the  measures  thereof  if  thou  knowest!  or 
who  hath  stretched  the  line  upon  it  ? ' ' — Job  38  :  24,25. 
Is  not  this  challenge  applicable  to  any  who  pre- 
sume to  know  the  duration  involved  when  God  * '  laid 
the  foundations  of  the  earth  f  Where  is  the  chal- 
lenge in  the  question,  ^^Who  hath  laid  the  measures 
thereof  if  thou  knowest?"  if  we  may  with  impunity 
apply  a  twenty-four  hour  day  measure  to  it?  for 
duration  is  evidently  one  of  the  measures  involving 
conditions  of  the  Creation. 

Adventists  will  say,  that  if  the  six  creation  days 
were  indefinite  periods,  then  the  seventh  day  on 
which  God  rested  must  also  be  an  indefinite  period. 

Inasmuch  as  God's  rest  day  belongs  both  to  God's 
days  and  man's  days,  it  doubtless  has  a  two-fold 
time  meaning.  It  may  be  regarded  as  a  twenty-four 
hour  day  from  man's  standpoint, — for  God  certainly 
rested  on  man's  first  time  measured  day.  It  may 
also  be  regarded  as  an  indefinite  period  from  God's 
standpoint, — for,  in  the  sense  that  the  Creation  was 
pronounced  '^finished,"  God  has  never  yet  ceased 
from  resting  by  returning  to  His  Creation  work. 

God 's  rest  can  only  be  represented  in  a  time  sense 
by  the  first  time  day  on  which  God  rested ;  but  there 
is  nothing  in  the  Bible  account  that  necessarily  limits 
God's  rest  to  that  one  twenty-four  hour  day.  The! 
record  says,  ^^Thus  the  heavens  and  the  earth  were 
finished  and  all  the  host  of  them.  And  on  the  sev- 
entli  da}^  God  ended  His  work  which  He  had  made; 


THE       CREATION       DAYS  47 

and  He  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  His  work 
which  He  had  made.  And  God  blessed  the  seventh 
day,  and  sanctified  it:  because  that  in  it  He  had 
rested  from  all  His  work  which  God  created  and 
made.''  (Gen.  2  :  1-3). 

The  fact  that  the  Creation  was  ^* finished"  makes  it 
impossible  that  God  rested  one  twenty-four  hour  day 
and  then  returned  to  His  Creation  work.  God  did 
not  rest  till  the  Creation  was  ^^ finished''  and  we 
have  no  reason  to  think  that  he  would  have  rested 
till  the  Creation  was  ^^ finished."  God's  rest  meant 
a  ^'finished"  Creation;  and,  in  so  far  as  it  meant 
rest  from  the  Creation  which  was  pronounced  *^  fin- 
ished," His  rest  never  has  ended,  and  never  will 
end  till  heaven  and  earth  pass  away  and  He  creates 
them  anew  as  predicted. 

The  Bible  predicts  that  the  heaven  and  the  eartli 
will  pass  away  (Matt.  24  :  35;  2  Pet.  3  :  10; 
Heb.  1  :  11;  Ps.  102  :  26;  Isa.  51  :  6)  and  that  God 
will  create  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  (Isa. 
65  :  17;  66  :  22;  2  Pet.  3  :  13;  Eev.  21  :  1).  When 
God  begins  to  create  the  new  heaven  and  the  new 
earth,  then  His  seventh  day  of  rest  from  the  first 
Creation  will  be  ended. 

When  will  this  be? — At  the  coming  of  the  Lord 
(see  2  Pet.  3  :  10).  When  did  the  angel  sware 
**that  there  should  be  time  no  longer"  (Eev.  10:  6)  ? 
— ^When  the  seventh  angel  should  begin  to  sound 
(verse  7).  What  happened  when  the  seventh  angel 
sounded? — ^^And  the  seventh  angel  sounded;  and 
there  were  great  voices  in  heaven,  saying.  The  king- 
doms of  this  world  are  become  the  kingdoms  of  our 
Lord,  and  of  his  Christ;  and  He  shall  reign  forever 
and  ever."  (Eev.  11  :  15). 


48  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Then  wlien  the  Lord  comes  time  shall  be  no  longer. 
We  also  read,  in  Rev.  20  :  11,12,  that  when  God  shall 
sit  on  His  throne  of  judgment,  the  earth  and  the 
heaven  shall  flee  away.  We  find  then  that  God's 
seventh  day  of  rest  and  man's  time  both  end  at  the 
coming  of  the  Lord. 

God's  rest  does  not  imply  forced  idleness,  any' 
more  than  Sabbath  rest  implies  forced  idleness. 
There  are  works  of  instruction,  helpfulness,  and 
mercy  that  are  in  perfect  harmony  with  Sabbath 
rest.  Gods  work  in  redeeming  man  is  truly  in  har- 
mony with  Sabbath  rest.  Eemember,  that  it  was 
only  from  His  work  of  Creation  which  was  pro- 
nounced ^^ finished,"  that  He  rested;  and  He  rested 
because  it  was  *^ finished."  Any  other  work  aside 
from  that  particular  work  from  which  He  rested 
would  not  put  an  end  to  His  rest  from  that  parti- 
cular work. 

We  read  in  Heb.  4  :  3,  9,  10,  *^For  we  which  have 
believed  do  enter  into  rest  .  .  .  There  remainetli 
therefore  a  rest  to  the  people  of  God.  For  he  that 
is  entered  into  his  rest,  he  also  hath  ceased  from 
his  own  works,  as  God  did  from  his. ' '  This  plainly 
teaches  that  the  believer  hath  entered  into  rest  by 
ceasing  from  his  own  works  just  as  God  hath  en- 
tered into  rest  by  ceasing  from  His  work  of  crea- 
ting the  heavens  and  the  earth. 

If  the  believer's  rest,  into  which  he  has  entered 
by  believing  in  Christ,  is  permanent,  then  are  we 
to  think  of  God's  rest  from  Creation  as  limited  to 
twenty-four  hours? — If  so,  the  comparison  falls 
short.  But  we  know  that  the  believers'  rest  is  as 
lasting   as   the   '^finished"   works    of   Eedemption 


THE       CREATION      DAYS  49 

(John  19  :  30)  :  then  the  comparison  justifies  the 
assertion  that  God's  rest  is  as  lasting  as  the  *' fin- 
ished'^  work  of  Creation. 

Therefore,  we  conclude  that  God's  original  seven 
day  cycle  began  with  the  first  day  of  Creation  and 
will  extend  to  the  end  of  time.  Adventists  say  that 
it  is  limited  to  seven  days  of  twenty-four  hours  each. 

Which  conception  more  nearly  harmonizes  with 
God's  infinite  and  eternal  nature?  God  said,  *^My 
thoughts  are  higher  than  your  thoughts"  (Isa. 
55  :  9).  Therefore,  though  we  can  never  attain  to 
the  height  of  God 's  thought,  yet  we  may  be  sure  that 
the  higher  our  thought,  the  nearer  we  are  to  God's 
thought. 

The  twenty-four  hour  creation-day  theory  contra- 
dicts nature. 

This  the  Adventists  themselves  do  not  deny.  Thus 
J.  N.  Andrews,  one  of  their  highest  authorities  says, 
**If  it  be  objected  that  a  day  of  twenty-four  hours 
is  inadequate  to  the  w^ork  of  the  first  day  of  time, 
the  answer  is  that  this  is  all  true,  if  the  work  of  crea- 
tion be  considered  the  work  of  nature ;  for  if  nature 
had  to  create  itself,  all  eternity  would  be  insufficient 
for  the  work.  But  if  an  infinite  Creator  called  the 
world  into  existence  out  of  nothing,  then  the  period 
of  twenty-four  hours  was  quite  adequate  for  the 
work  of  the  first  day  of  time."  {The  Sabbath  and 
the  Law — page  7). 

In  admitting,  that  according  to  nature  the  twenty- 
four  hour  creation-day  was  inadequate  for  the  work 
done  in  it,  he  practically  assumes  that  God — who  is 


50  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

the  God  of  nature — created  tlie  heavens  and  the 
earth  contrary  to  nature. 

Because  eternity  is  insufficient  for  nature  to  create 
itself  without  God,  does  not  argue  that  God  did  not 
work  through  nature.  Nor  is  it  a  question  of  what 
God  could  do,  but  of  what  He  did  do. 

Adventists  say  that  God  cannot  contradict  Him- 
self. Then  did  the  God  of  nature  contradict  Him- 
self by  working  contrary  to  nature? 

If  the  necessity  required,  doubtless  God  could 
work  contrary  to  nature  without  contradicting  Him-! 
self.  But  if  the  necessity  did  not  require,  God  cer-, 
tainly  could  not  work  contrary  to  nature  without 
contradicting  His  own  nature,  for  He  is  the  God 
of  nature.  If  ^'a  thousand  years  in  God's  sight  are' 
but  as  yesterday  when  it  is  past,  and  as  a  watch  in 
the  night,''  there  was  certainly  no  necessity  for 
Him  to  create  the  heavens  and  the  earth  in  six 
twenty-four  hour  days  contrary  to  nature. 

Christs'  miracles  were  evidently  beyond  nature,' 
but  not,  necessarily,  contrary  to  nature.  He  only 
used  His  supernatural  power  when  natural  means 
failed.  He  never  unnecessarily  opposed  the  laws 
of  nature.  He  never  performed  a  miracle  from  any 
selfish  motive  or  to  boastfully  parade  His  power. 
His  miracles  were  stamped  as  genuine  in  their  very 
truthfulness  to  the  divine  nature,  and  justified  in 
the  lessons  that  needed  to  be  taught,  in  the  suffer- 
ing that  needed  to  be  relieved,  and  in  His  authority 
that  needed  to  be  attested. 

The  great  miracle  of  the  Eesurrection  was  neces- 
sary to  declare  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power  (Eom.  1  :  4),  to  attest  His  victory  over  sin 


THE      CREATION      DAYS  51 

and  death  (1  Cor.  15  :  55-57),  to  witness  God's  ac- 
ceptance of  the  sacrifice  (Acts  17  :  31),  and  to  be  the 
Christian's  guarantee  of  his  own  resurrection 
(2  Cor.  4   :  14). 

If  there  was  any  conceivable  justification  for 
God's  creating  the  heavens  and  the  earth  in  six 
twenty-four  hour  days,  contrary  to  nature,  there 
would  then  be  that  much  reason  for  assuming  that 
He  did;  but  in  the  very  absence  of  any  conceivable 
justification  for  it,  there  is  no  reason  for  assuming 
that  He  did. 

Would  God  dishonor  His  own  laws  in  nature — 
which  He  Himself  created  and  so  jealously  guards — 
by  ignoring  them  Himself!  Was  He  in  such  a  hurry 
to  create  the  heavens  and  the  earth  that  He  did  it  in 
six  twenty-four  hour  days  I  Was  the  Creation  the  re- 
sult of  a  sudden  impulse  f  Did  delay  tax  His  patience  ? 
Would  He  secure  greater  honor  by  a  short  unnatural 
creation  than  by  a  long  natural  creation?  Do  we 
see  God's  infinite,  eternal,  and  unchangeable  char- 
acter more  through  a  short  unnatural  creation  theory 
than  through  a  long  natural  creation  theory?  Do 
we  get  a  higher  conception  of  the  holiness  of  God's 
laws  through  His  dishonoring  of  them  than  through 
His  honoring  of  them  ? 

1  Or,  in  short,  do  we  get  a  higher  conception  of  God 
through  the  twenty-four-hour  creation-day  theory 
than  through  the  indefinite  period  creation-day 
theory?  If  we  can  determine  which  is  the  higher 
thought,  we  can  safely  judge  that  the  higher  thought 
is  the  nearer  to  God's  thought;  for,  ^^ God's  thoughts 
are  higher  than  our  thoughts."  (Isa.  55  :  9). 

True  science  is  God's  word  as  truly  as  is  the 


52  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Bible.  Both  contain  the  truth;  and  truth  cannot 
contradict  itself.  We  have  no  need  to  fear  for  the 
Bible  if  it  is  the  true  word  of  God.  Science  can 
only  clear  away  false  conceptions  of  the  Bible,  which 
always  results  in  a  higher  conception  of  the  charac- 
ter of  God  and  of  the  Bible  as  His  inspired  word. 

The  theory  that  the  earth  was  the  stationary  cen- 
ter around  which  the  universe  revolved  daily,  was 
once  held  by  the  Church  with  all  the  tenacity  with 
which  Adventists  still  cling  to  the  twenty-four-hour 
creation-day  theory.  In  defending  the  former  theory, 
the  Church  arrayed  the  Bible  against  science.  In 
defending  the  latter  theory,  Adventists  are  doing 
the  same.  The  natural  result  in  the  first  case  was 
a  wave  of  infidelity  that  swept  over  Europe.  The 
natural  tendency  in  the  second  case  is  in  the  same 
direction. 

Adventists  even  boast  that  nearly  all  that  leave 
them  become  infidels ;  but  they  try  to  make  the  fact 
appear  as  an  evidence  that  they  teach  the  truth, 
because  to  deny  the  truth  of  the  Bible  is  to  become 
an  infidel.  But  it  is  teaching  false  theories  in  the 
name  of  the  Bible,  thus  arraying  the  Bible  against 
the  truth,  that  makes  infidels. 

No  doubt  false  theories  have  been  held  in  the 
name  of  science  as  well  as  in  the  name  of  the  Bible ; 
and  a  theory  must  be  false  that  cannot  be  held  in 
the  name  of  both:  for  the  Bible  and  science  cannot 
contradict  each  other  in  any  true  sense,  for  both 
are  the  truth  of  God.  All  apparent  contradictions 
therefore  must  be  due  to  our  imperfect  understand- 
ing of  one  or  the  other. 

It  is  a  mistake  to  think  to  defend  the  Bible  against  i 


THE       CREATION      DAYS  53 

the  light  of  science:  the  Bible  needs  defence  only 
against  such  defenders, — whose  defence  is  in  the  in- 
terest of  a  theory  instead  of  the  Bible.  Science  is 
the  best  defence  of  the  Bible  against  false  theories. 

Adventists  admit,  as  we  have  shown,  that  the 
twenty-four-hour  creation-day  theory  contradicts 
nature — to  reveal  the  laws  of  which  is  the  sole  end 
of  science.  In  defending  the  theory,  Adventists  pose 
as  the  defenders  of  the  Bible.  Then  they  are  prac- 
tically defending  the  Bible  against  the  teaching  of 
science.  They  are  in  exactly  the  same  position  as 
the  Church  was  when  it  defended  the  theory  that 
the  earth  was  the  stationary  center  around  which 
the  universe  revolved. 

The  fact  that  they  are  defending  a  theory  which 
the  Bible  does  not  necessarily  teach  (as  the  great 
majority  of  Bible  scholars  are  agreed)  shows  that 
they  are  not  so  much  concerned  in  defending  the 
Bible  as  in  defending  their  theory.  And  the  fact, 
too,  that  they  are  defending  a  theory  which  in  itself 
is  not  of  the  slightest  consequence  (since  nothing 
can  alter  the  fact  of  Creation),  shows  that  there 
must  be  a  reason  behind  it.  And  the  reason  is  not 
difficult  to  see. 

The  reason  is  that  the  twenty-four-hour  creation- 
day  theory  is  vital  to  their  seventh  day  of  the  week 
Sabbath  doctrine  which  is  based  on  the  assumption 
that  God  rested  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  first  week 
of  time;  and  for  this  to  be  true,  the  creation  days 
must  be  twenty-four  hour  days.  Hence  their  Sab- 
bath doctrine  must  stand  or  fall  with  the  twenty- 
four-hour  creation-day  theory. 


54  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Perhaps  the  least  worthy  of  notice  is  what  may 
Tbe  called  the  ^* child  thought ^^  argument;  for  ex- 
ample, see  Adventist  tract  entitled,  ^^How  Esther 
read  her  Bible.''  The  tract,  however,  bears  di- 
rectly on  the  Sabbath  question;  but  the  ^' child 
thought"  argument  applies  as  well  to  the  creation 
question. 

The  twenty-four  hour  conception  is  the  ^^  child 
thought"  of  the  creation  days;  hence,  according  to 
the  ^^ child  thought"  argument,  it  is  the  natural 
thought,  and  therefore  the  true  thought.  Just  as 
well  apply  the  *' child  thought"  argument  to  any 
other  theological  question.  Would  they  put  a  child 
in  a  theological  chair  to  teach  theology? 

In  reading,  or  hearing  read,  the  Creation  account 
for  the  first  time,  the  child  would  naturally  apply 
the  twenty-four  hour  conception  to  the  word  '  ^  day, ' ' 
because  it  has  never  known  any  other.  It  would  be 
absurd  to  expect  anything  else. 

Paul  said,  '^When  I  was  a  child,  I  spake  as  a 
child,  I  understood  as  a  child,  I  thought  as  a  child; 
but  when  I  became  a  man,  I  put  away  childish 
things"  (1  Cor.  13  :  12).  Again  he  said,  ''Be  not 
children  in  understanding  .  .  .  but  in  understand- 
ing be  men"  (1  Cor.  14  :  20). 

When  Christ  said,  ''Unless  ye  become  as  a  little 
child,"  He  undoubtedly  meant  in  faith,  not  in 
understanding. 

If  it  was  essential  to  salvation  to  know  the  dura- 
tion of  the  creation  days,  there  would  be  some  weight 
to  the  "child  thought"  argument,  on  the  ground 
that  God  would  not  put  any  knowledge  necessary  to 


THE      CEEATION       DAYS  55 

salvation  beyond  the  reach  of  the  weakest  for  whom 
salvation  was  provided. 

But  our  salvation  is  only  by  faith  in  Jesus  Christ ; 
^'For  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is 
laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ." — 1  Cor.  3  :  11. 


CHAPTER  11. 


THE  BEGINNING  OF  TIME. 


Eternity  is  duration  in  its  unmeasured  sense. 
Time  is  that  portion  of  eternity,  or  duration,  that 
is  measured  by  man's  day  measure, — or,  man 
measured  duration. 

It  is  evident  that  the  rotation  of  the  earth  on  its 
axis  every  twenty-four  hours  furnishes  the  most 
natural  unit  of  measure  with  which  to  measure  dura- 
tion on  the  earth.  The  intelligent  inhabitants,  if 
such  there  be,  of  other  worlds  would  doubtless,  for 
the  same  reason,  take  theii  unit  of  measurement 
from  the  rotation  of  their  world,  and,  unless  their 
world  rotated  in  the  same  time  as  ours,  their 
measure  would  be  different  from  ours.  But  how 
they  measure  duration  does  not  concern  us. 

Time  then  is  the  measurement  of  duration  by  man 
on  the  earth. 

The  Bible  clearly  teaches  (2  Pet.  3-8;  Ps.  90  :  4) 
that  in  His  private  counsel  God  does  not  measure 
duration  by  man's  days,  and  therefore  it  is  only  in 
His  dealings  with  man,  and  because  of  His  dealings 
with  man,  that  He  recognizes  (as  the  Bible  shows) 


THE    BEGINNING    OF    TIME  57 

man's  clays.  It  is  merely  a  case  of  the  Infinite  mind 
adapting  itself  to  the  finite  mind. 

There  are,  in  a  general  sense,  only  two  theories  in 
regard  to  the  beginning  of  time.  One  begins  time 
with  the  first  day  of  Creation :  the  other  begins  time 
since  the  creation  of  man.  The  whole  question  de- 
pends on  whether  or  not  the  creation  days  were 
twenty-four  hour  days.  If  they  were  measured  by 
the  standard  with  which  time  is  measured,  they 
would  necessarily  be  a  part  of  measured  duration, 
or  time.    Otherwise,  they  would  belong  to  eternity. 

We  have  shown  in  the  preceding  chapter  that  the 
twenty-four  hour  creation-day  theory  contradicts 
the  Bible,  nature,  and  reason  at  every  point. 

In  Deut.  4  :  32,  Moses  clearly  specified  ^Hhe  days 
that  are  past"  as  ^^ since  the  day  that  God  created 
man  upon  the  earth.''  God  created  man  on  the 
sixth  day  of  Creation.  Then  the  first  time  measured 
day  following  the  sixth  day  of  Creation  was  man's 
first  day  in  a  chronological  (not  birthday)  sense. 

A  person's  birthday  is  never  counted  as  the  first 
day  of  his  life  in  a  chronological  sense,  for  the 
simple  reason  that  it  is  not  a  complete  day  and  is 
therefore  not  a  complete  chronological,  or  time 
measuring  unit.  We  cannot  begin  to  measure  at  a 
point  before  the  thing  to  be  measured  exists.  Time, 
in  a  chronological  sense,  must  have  a  definite  begin- 
ing,  and  therefore  must  begin  v/ith  a  complete  time 
measuring  unit. 

If  we  wish  to  find  the  age  of  a  person  who  is  dead, 
we  subtract  the  date  of  his  birth  from  the  date  of 
his  death.  Thus,  we  subtract,  or  take  away,  the  day 
of  his  birth  from  the  rest  of  his  life. 


V 


58  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Besides  the  chronological  sense  of  time  ^here  is,^ 
evidently,  also  a  birthday  or  memorial  sense,  as 
when  we  commemorate  our  birthday  or  some  Na- 
tional holiday  or  the  weekly  Sabbath,  etc.,  in  which 
the  day  of  the  event  commemorated  is  the  recognized 
starting  point  of  the  count. 

The  chronological  sense  of  time  may  be  defined 
as  the  relation  of  time  to  a  measuring  unit.  The 
memorial  sense  of  time  may  be  defined  as  the  rela- 
tion of  time  to  an  event.  The  Jewish  inclusive  meth- 
od of  reckoning,  referred  to  later,  clearly  belongs 
to  the  latter  sense. 

Genesis,  chapters  5  and  11,  give  the  chronology 
of  the  Bible  from  Adam  to  Abraham,  and  begins 
thus:  *^And  Adam  lived  an  hundred  and  thirty 
years  and  begat  a  son  in  his  own  likeness,  after  his 
image;  and  called  his  name  Setli:  And  the  days  of 
Adam  after  he  had  begotten  Seth  were  eight  hund- 
red years ;  and  he  begat  sons  and  daughters :  And 
all  the  days  that  Adam  lived  were  nine  hundred  and 
thirty  years:  and  he  died.''  (Gen.  5  :  3-5). 

Thus  the  Bible  chronology  begins  with,  ^'All  the 
days  that  Adam  lived. ' '  But  the  creation  days  were 
not  a  part  of  Adam 's  life,  and  hence  are  not  included 
in  the  Bible  chronology. 

We  have  then  two  unmistakable  proofs  (Gen.  5  :  5 
and  Deut.  4  :  32)  that  Moses  began  the  count  of  time 
with  the  first  time  measured  day  of  man. 

Why  do  Adventist  teachers  (posing  as  the  cham- 
pions of  the  literal  interpretation  and  positive  in- 
spiration of  the  Bible)  ignore  these  plain  proofs? 
The  sole  reason  can  only  be  that  these  proofs  do 


THE   BEGINNING   OF   TIME  59 

not  liarmonize  with  their  twenty-four  hour  creation- 
day  theory  on  which  their  seventh  day  of  the  week 
Sabbath  doctrine  so  much  depends.  Is  it  not  evi- 
dent then,  that  it  is  their  theory,  more  than  the 
Bible,  that  they  are  really  concerned  in  sustaining? 

In  Mr.  Andrews'  answer  to  Mede,  Jennings, 
Akers,  and  Fuller,  page  25,  he  says,  *^The  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  contains  a  record  which  com- 
mences with  what  the  Holy  Spirit  calls  Hlie  begin- 
ing/  Of  what  is  this  the  beginning?  of  eternity!  Mr. 
F.  will  not  assert  it,  though  he  places  this  beginning 
in  eternity;  i.  e.,  he  asserts  that  the  events  of  the 
six  days  of  creation  belong  not  to  time,  but  to  eter- 
nity. Perhaps  Mr.  F.  will  say  that  the  beginning  is 
simply  the  beginning  of  our  world's  history.  But  is 
it  not  true  that  God  caused  Moses  to  count  time  from 
that  very  point?"  Answer. — No,  God  did  not 
^^ cause  Moses  to  count  time  from  that  very  point," 
for  Moses  did  not  count  time  from  that  point.  Did 
Mr.  Andrews  never  read  Gen.  5  :  5  and  Deut.  4  :  32, 
which  clearly  show  that  Moses  counted  time  from 
the  first  time  measured  day  of  Adam! 

^^In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth"  (Gen.  1:1).  This  merely  states  a  self-^ 
evident  truth ;  for  though  eternity  has  no  beginning, 
it  is  self-evident  that  all  created  things  must  have 
had  a  beginning.  The  very  time  vagueness  of  the 
statement  is  the  extreme  opposite  in  sense  to  a  fixed 
time  date, — such  as  six  twenty-four  hour  days  previ- 
ous to  the  creation  of  man  would  be, — which  is  proof, 
on  the  face  of  it  that  Moses  had  no  fixed  time  date 
in  his  mind  when  he  wrote  it. 

Moreover,  ^^tlie  beginning/'  in  its  farthest  reach. 


60  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

extends  back  over  the  duration  involved  in  the  crea-" 
tion  of  the  entire  universe,  and  it  would  be  absurd 
to  think  that  duration  throughout  the  entire  uni- 
verse is  measured  by  the  rotation  of  the  earth,  which 
is  comparatively  only  a  very  insignificant  planet 
among  the  countless  rotating  bodies  that  comprise 
the  universe. 

/  How  could  the  inhabitants,  if  such  there  be,  of 
other  worlds,  with  differing  rotation  periods  from 
ours,  measure  duration  by  the  rotation  of  our  earth! 
It  would  be  contrary  to  the  character  of  God,  who 
is  the  God  of  nature,  to  make  such  an  unnatural  ar- 
rangement. Besides,  the  unmistakable  inference  in 
2  Pet.  3  :  8  and  Ps.  90  :  4  is  that  the  God  of  the 
universe  does  not  throughout  the  universe  regard 
the  twenty-four  hour  day  measure,  but  only  on  the 
earth,  in  His  dealings  with  man,  and  then  only  be- 
cause it  is  man's  natural  measure  of  time. 

Again,  Mr.  Andrews  says  (page  26),  Mr.  F. 
acknowledges  the  rest-day  of  the  Creator  to  belong 
to  time;  but  he  denies  this  of  the  days  which  God 
employed  in  the  work  of  creation.  But  observe  that 
the  day  of  God's  rest  is  called  the  seventh  day. 
Gen.  2  :  1-3.  This  shows  that  the  rest-day  of  the 
Lord  belongs  to  a  series  which  commenced  with 
what  Moses  calls  Hlie  beginning/  Mr.  F.  must  there- 
fore admit  that  the  six  days  belong  to  time,  or  else 
assert  that  the  seventh  day  belongs  to  eternity.  As 
he  cannot  ascribe  the  seventh  day  to  eternity,  he 
must  acknowledge  the  six  days  of  creation  to  be  the 
first  six  days  of  time. ' ' 

Ansiver. — God's  seventh  day  on  which  He  rested 


THE    BEGINNING    OF    TIME  61 

extends  to  the  end  of  time — it  is  Time.  From  what 
did  God  rest? — ^^From  all  his  work  which  God 
created  and  made"  (Gen.  2:3).  Did  He  leave  His 
work  unfinished  when  Pie  rested? — ^'Thus  the 
heavens  and  the  earth  were  finished"  (Gen.  2:1). 

"Will  Mr.  Andrews  assert  that  God  rested  one 
twenty-four  hour  day  and  then  returned  to  finish 
His  work  of  Creation?  Can  he  point  to  any  definite 
time  since  when  God  has  returned  to  His  work  of 
Creation? 

God's  rest  from  a  '^finished"  Creation  must  be 
as  lasting  as  the  ^'finished"  Creation  from  which 
He  rested.  For,  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Creation 
w^as  pronounced  "finished"  (Gen.  2  :  1),  God's 
rest  can  never  cease  by  returning  to  finish  that  which 
vras  pronounced  "finished." 

The  Bible  predicts  that  the  heaven  and  the  earth 
Vv^ill  pass  away,  and  that  God  vvill  create  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth.  Then,  and  not  till  then, 
will  God's  seventh  day  on  which  He  rested  from 
Creation  be  ended. 

Mr.  Andrews  argues  that  the  seventh  day  on 
vrhich  God  rested  must  belong  to  the  same  series 
with  the  six  days  of  Creation.  Then  the  six  days 
of  Creation  must  be  indefinite  periods  to  belong  to 
the  same  series  with  the  seventh  day — which  is  an 
indefinite  period — unless  Mr.  Andrews  can  prove 
that  God  returned  to  His  work  of  Creation  after 
resting  one  twenty-four  hour  day. 

The  original,  or  first  day  of  time  on  which  God 
rested — as  representing  the  fact  of  God's  rest — 
may  be  regarded,  in  view  of  Gen.  2  :  3,  as  the  start- 
ing point  of  the  weekly  Sabbath,    For,  in  so  far  as 


62  SABBATH  "theology 

the  Infinite  mind  adapts  itself  to  tlie  finite  mind  in 
its  dealings  with  man,  it  was  truly  God's  original 
Sabbath.  Besides,  there  is  no  other  definite  start- 
ing point  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  before  the  giving 
of  the  Law  on  Sinai,  and  it  is  unreasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  the  Sabbath,  which  ^^was  made  for  man,'' 
as  Christ  said,  was  withheld  till  then  and  given  only 
to  the  Israelites. 

Again,  Mr.  Andrews  continues  (page  27),  **He 
(Mr.  F.)  says  that  the  day  on  which  God  rested 
was  the  first  day  of  Adam's  existence.  But,  for 
this  to  be  true,  Adam  must  have  been  created  on 
the  seventh  day  of  the  week;  or,  if  such  a  thing  be 
conceivable,  he  was  created  on  the  very  line  which 
divides  the  seventh  from  the  sixth.  But  neither  of 
these  conclusions  is  truthful.  Adam  was  created  on 
the  sixth  day  of  the  week  and  at  a  period  in  the 
day  when  very  much  of  it  remained  unexpired." 
'  Would  not  Mr.  Andrews  subtract  the  date  of  his 
own  birth  from  the  rest  of  his  life  in  computing  his 
own  age  f  Then  what  reason  can  he  give  for  not  ap- 
plying the  same  rule  to  Adam. 

It  is  impossible  to  apply  the  day  measure  at  the 
exact  point* in  the  day  at  which  Adam's  life  began, 
for  the  Bible  does  not  give  the  exact  point;  then  it 
must  be  applied  at  the  first  natural  day  beginning 
point  before  or  after.  But,  judging  from  the  Crea- 
tion account,  the  greater  part  of  the  sixth  day  was 
before  Adam's  life.  Then  would  it  be  correct  to 
count  the  whole  of  the  sixth  day  as  the  first  day 
of  his  life  ?  It  could  be  his  first  day  only  in  a  birth- 
day sense,  not  in  a  chronological  sensef  for  we 


THE    BEGINNING    OF    TIME  63 

must  remember  that  the  day  is  the  unit  of  measure, 
and  as  the  measuring  unit  of  man's  life,  it  cannot  be 
applied  before  his  life  begins,  but  must  be  applied 
at  the  first  natural  day  beginning  point  after.  Hence 
the  only  uniform  and  practical  rule  possible  is  to 
leave  the  day  measures  as  nature  itself  has  placed 
them,  and  count  a  man's  life  by  the  number  of  nat- 
ural days  that  follow  after  the  beginning  of  his  ex- 
istence. Does  Mr.  Andrews  presume  to  ignore  the 
only  practical  rule  that  ever  did  exist  —  the  only 
chronological  rule  that  has  ever  been  recognized? 

Again,  Mr.  Andrews  says  (page  29),  ^^Did  Adam 
take  a  wife  the  day  before  his  own  existence  com- 
menced? Did  God  cause  the  animals  to  pass  in  suc- 
cession before  Adam  that  he  might  give  them  names 
suited  to  their  several  organizations,  and  yet  no 
Adam  exist  till  the  follov/ing  day?  Did  God  place 
Adam  upon  probation,  and  threaten  him  with  death 
in  case  he  sinned,  and  Adam  himself  have  no  ex- 
istence till  the  ensuing  day?  And  what  about  in- 
trusting him  with  the  garden  before  there  was  any 
Adam  to  intrust  with  it?  Will  Mr.  F.  deny  that 
these  things  required  time?" 

Notice,  in  passing,  that  the  question  of  time  does 
not  bother  Mr.  Andrews  in  the  slightest  when  it 
comes  to  crowding  creation  ages  into  twenty-four 
hours.  But  he  asks  "Will  Mr.  F.  deny  that  these 
(minor)  things  (which  he  enumerated)  required 
time?"  We  presume,  not  very  much,  on  the  prin- 
ciple by  which  Mr.  Andrews  accounts  for  ages  being 
crowded  into  hours.  But,  of  course,  the  slightest 
particle  of  time  is  sufficient  to  prove  Mr.  Andrews' 
point  as  to  the  existence  of  Adam  on  the  sixth  day. 


64  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

However,  Mr.  Andrews'  wliole  argument  is  based 
on  a  wilful  misrepresentation  of  Mr.  F.'s  position; 
for  Mr.  Andrews  knew  full  well  that  Mr.  F.  does 
not  deny  that  Adam  existed  on  the  sixth  day  of  crea- 
tion in  a  birthday  sense,  and  that  he  only  asserts 
that  the  day  following  on  which  God  rested,  was 
Adam's  first  complete  day,  or  first  day  in  a  chrono- 
logical sense. 

Mr.  F.  undoubtedly  accepts  the  record  of  the 
sixth  day  of  creation  as  fully  as  does  Mr.  Andrews. 
So  Mr.  Andrews  cannot  thus  evade  the  question  of 
Adaiii's  first  day  in  a  chronological  sense, — for,  re- 
member, it  is  the  chronological,  not  the  hirthdai;^ 
sense,  that  must  determine  the  beginning  of  chrono- 
logy, or  measured  time. 

As  to  the  duration  required  for  God  to  do  the 
things  He  did  on  the  sixth  day  of  creation  after 
creating  Adam,  we  are  quite  willing  to  accept  Mr. 
Andrews '  own  estimate,  for  there  is  no  danger  of  his 
estimate  exceeding  twenty-four  hours.  We  would 
not  necessarily  limit  it  even  to  twenty-four  hours. 

Time  is  that  part  of  duration  which  is  measured 
by  the  day  measure ;  but  until  the  day  measure  was 
applied,  duration  was  still  unmeasured  in  a  time 
sense. 

If  the  sixth  day  of  creation  was  an  indefinite  pe- 
riod, it  is  possible  that  Adam  existed  during  that 
period  for  years  without  taking  any  more  notice  of 
the  passage  of  duration  than  did  the  animals  around 
him.  No  fear  of  death  caused  him  to  count  the  pass- 
ing days,  for  death  had  yet  no  more  meaning  to  him 
than  to  the  animals  aroand  him.  He  had  as  yet  no 
conception  of  duration  in  a  time  limited  sense  any 


THE   BEGINNING   OF    TIME  65 

more  than  had  the  animals  aronnd  him,  and  not  till 
the  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  necessitating  the 
counting  of  days,  did  he  have  any  real  occasion  for 
taking  account  of  time;  and  he  would  naturally 
therefore  begin  the  count  of  time  with  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Sabbath.  All  that  went  before  was  to 
him  unmeasured  duration. 

The  institution  of  the  Sabbath  necessarily  in- 
volved a  certain  amount  of  instruction  in  regard  to 
the  measurement  of  time.  This  instruction  would 
not  seem  to  be  necessary  until  the  institution  of 
the  Sabbath  made  it  necessary.  And,  on  the  prin- 
ciple that  God  does  nothing  that  is  unnecessary,  we 
conclude,  that,  with  the  Sabbath,  God  gave  to  Adam 
the  necessary  instruction  in  the  measurement  of 
time,  and  thus  to  Adam  the  first  Sabbath  would  be- 
come the  first  definite  day  in  a  time  measured  sense. 
Hence  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Sabbath  was  the  original  occasion  and 
therefore  the  starting  point  of  man  measured  dura- 
tion, or  time. 

It  could  still  be  said,  in  a  day  applied  sense,  that 
^^all  the  davs  that  Adam  lived  were  nine  hundred 
and  thirty  years"  (Gen.  5  :  5) ;  for  the  day  in  an 
applied  sense  did  not  exist  till  it  was  first  applied 
as  a  measure.  The  day  measure  doubtless  existed 
indefinitely  before  man  existed,  and  then  perhaps 
indefinitely  before  it  was  applied  by  man  as  a  mea- 
sure of  duration;  but  time,  in  the  sense  of  man 
measured  duration,  could  not  begin  till  man  himself 
applied  the  day  measure  to  it. 

The  fall  of  m.an  and  his  expulsion  from  the  garden 
of  Eden  Vv^ould  seem  to  be  the  true  beginning  of 


66  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

time  in  a  finite  sense.  Duration  liad  to  Adam,  doubt- 
less, no  time  limited  meaning  until,  by  reason  of 
the  death  sentence  for  disobedience,  God  opened  his 
eyes  to  its  time  limited  meaning.  Adam  and  Eve, 
like  the  animals  around  them,  had  yet  no  conscious 
need  to  mark  the  passage  of  duration.  They  were 
doubtless  as  unconscious  of  the  passage  of  duration 
as  they  were  of  their  own  nakedness  (Gen.  2  :  25 
and  3  :  10,11),  and  their  eyes  were  opened  to  the 
one  fact,  just  as  to  the  other,  by  eating  of  the  ^'tree 
of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil."  (^^The  tree  of 
knowledge  of  good  and  eviP'  was  evidently  meant 
to  convey  a  truth,  and  whether  we  choose  to  take 
it  literally  or  figuratively,  the  truth  conveyed  re- 
mains practically  the  same.) 

The  Sabbath  even  would  not  seem  to  be  a  needful 
institution,  either  physically  or  morally,  till  sin  made 
it  needful, — for  the  same  reason  that  animals  in 
their  natural  state  need  no  sabbath.  The  Bible  it- 
self,  as  the  guide  to  show  man  the  way  back  to  God, 
would  not  have  been  needed  except  for  the  fall, 
whereby  man  through  disobedience  became  separ- 
ated from  God.  Hence  there  is  reason  to  conclude 
that  time  and  the  Sabbath  as  well  as  the  Bible  had 
their  origin  in  the  fall  of  man. 

From  this  view,  however,  time  did  not  begin  with 
God's  rest  from  Creation,  unless  the  third  chapter 
of  Genesis  is  also  included  in  the  sixth  day  of  crea- 
tion. This  is  not  improbable  since  Genesis  3  has 
all  the  indefinable  character  of  the  Creation  account, 
and  we  cannot  be  sure  that  there  were  no  unrecorded 
acts  of  creation  during  that  period;  nor  at  what 
point  Adam's  creation  reached  the  perfected  stage 


THE   BEGINNING   OF    TIME  67 

of  development  required  as  the  appointed  head  of 
the  human  race,  and  God  pronounced  the  Creation 
*^  finished.'' 

But  whether  Genesis  3  is  included  in  the  Creation 
or  not, — i.  e.,  whether  time  began  at  the  end  of 
Genesis  2  or  of  Genesis  3, — in  any  case,  the  first 
day  of  time  would  establish  the  fact  of  God's  rest  in 
a  time  sense,  and  thus  represent  the  fact  of  God's 
rest.  And  no  other  day  than  the  first  could  thus 
establish  the  fact  of  God's  rest, — in  that  it  was  al- 
ready established  in  the  firsts — and  therefore  no 
other  day  than  the  first  could  represent  the  fact  of 
God's  rest. 

Some  may  hold  the  theory  that  the  Sabbath  was 
appointed  after  the  beginning  of  time.  But  even 
if  this  were  true,  the  after  appointment  would  only 
confirm  the  day  fixed  by  God's  resting  on  the  first 
day  of  the  first  week  of  time,  just  as  the  manna  con- 
firmed the  day  fixed  by  the  Exodus,  and  the  out- 
jjouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost  confirmed 
the  day  fixed  by  the  Eesurrection.  For,  in  each 
case,  the  reason  for  and  the  appointment  of  must 
correspond  in  the  day  of  the  week,  if  the  latter  is  to 
commemorate  the  former  in  a  fixed  day  of  the  week 
sense. 

Thus  we  see  that,  in  any  case,  we  must  conclude 
that  the  primitive  Sabbath  was  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  unless  we  accept  the  Adventists'  twenty- 
four  hour  creation-day  theory,  making  Time  begin 
with  the  first  day  of  creation  instead  of  v/ith  the 
first  time  measured  day  of  man.  But  we  have  shown 
in  Chapter  I.  that  the  twenty-four  hour  creation-day 
theory  contradicts  the  plain  teaching  of  the  Bible. 


68  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

The  question  of  the  beginning  of  time  is  of  no 
practical  importance  except  as  it  bears  on  the  Sab- 
bath question. 

The  various  diverging  and  subdiverging  branches 
of  the  human  race  argue  one  common  head  just  as 
the  diverging  and  subdiverging  branches  of  a  tree 
argue  one  common  trunk;  for  the  converging  back- 
ward toward  the  beginning  must  inevitably  lead  to 
one  common  head.  There  is  no  other  possible  final 
termination  of  the  converging  principle.  The  one 
common  head  of  the  human  race  is  therefore  the 
natural  conclusion,  as  well  as  the  unmistakable 
teaching  of  the  Bible. 

All  created  things  necessarily  had  their  begin- 
ning in  creation,  and,  back  of  all,  is  necessarily  the 
creator;  for  self -creation  is  logically  unthinkable. 
*^God  created  man''  (Gen.  1  :  27),  is  therefore  the 
simple  statement  of  a  self-evident  fact.  ^'In  his 
own  image"  is  the  further  simple  (and  only  possible 
satisfactory)  explanation  of  man's  superiority  over 
the  lower  animals. 

The  gradual  shortening  of  the  average  span  of 
human  life  argues  a  gradual  physical  degeneration 
of  the  human  race ;  and  this,  in  turn,  argues  a  per- 
fect physical  type  at  the  beginning.  But  in  regard 
to  the  duration  or  process  involved  in  the  creation 
of  this  perfect  physical  type,  the  Creation  account 
does  not  give  the  slightest  clue  on  which  to  base 
any  theory. 

It  is  only  the  twenty-four  hour  creation-day 
theory  that  limits  the  creation  of  Adam  to  within 
twenty-four  hours.    But  if  the  theory  is  false,  then 


THE    BEGINKING    OF    TIME  69 

just  as  we  cannot  definitely  limit  the  creation  of 
Adam  to  seconds,  minutes,  or  hours,  no  more  can 
we  to  days  or  years. 

However,  all  that  is  needful  for  us  to  know  is 
recorded,  and  therefore  the  sixth  day  of  creation, 
regardless  of  the  duration  involved,  can  only  be  re- 
garded— in  view  of  the  record — as  Adam's  birth 
day,  just  as  if  it  were  a  twenty-four  hour  day,  and 
the  first  time  measured  day  as  the  first  day  of  his 
life  in  a  chronological  sense, — a  fact  that  Moses 
clearly  recognized  when  he  specified  time,  or  *'the 
days  that  are  past,''  ^^as  since  the  day  that  God 
created  man  upon  the  earth." 

Both  Creation  accounts  lack  the  marks  of  di- 
rect revelation,  but  bear  the  marks  of  inspired 
discernment. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE   WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  THE  PRIMITIVE   SABBATH. 

The  institution  of  the  Sabbath  would  necessitate 
the  counting  of  days  and  result  in  the  weekly  cycle, 
and  this  is  practically  the  only  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  the  weekly  cycle.  Evidently  there  was  no 
counting  of  days  before  there  was  any  conscious 
need  for  counting.  Hence  the  Sabbath,  as  the 
earliest  conscious  need  for  the  counting  of  days, 
may  be  regarded,  not  only  as  the  starting  point  of 
the  weekly  cycle,  but  also  as  the  original  occasion, 
and  therefore  the  starting  point  of  man-measured 
duration,  or  time. 

We  have  already  given  the  Bible  proofs  that  lead 
to  the  conclusion  that  God's  original  seven-day  cycle 
began  with  the  first  day  of  creation  and  extends  to 
the  end  of  time. 

Some  one  may  then  say.  How  can  the  weekly  cycle 
be  a  copy  of  God's  model  when  the  model  is  not  yet 
completed  1  But  the  model  is  and  ever  has  been  com- 
pleted in  the  mind  of  God  who  established  the  week- 
ly cycle. 

Moreover,  the  fact  of  God's  rest  was  established 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PRIMITIVE   SABBATH  71 

on  the  first  day  of  time  on  which.  God  rested,  for 
God  undoubtedly  rested  on  the  first  day  of  time  or 
man's  first  day  in  a  chronological  sense;  hence  the 
first  day  of  time  represents  the  fact  of  God's  rest. 
The  fact  is  the  definite  thing  in  God's  sight;  for 
duration  in  His  sight  has  no  definite  time  value,  as 
shown  by  2  Pet.  3  :  8  and  Ps.  90  :  4.  Then  the  fact 
of  God's  rest  as  established  by  the  first  day  of  time, 
completes  the  sense  of  the  model,  as  a  model  to  be 
copied. 

The  fact  of  the  finished  Creation  was  established 
by  the  fact  of  God's  rest,  and  the  fact  of  God's  rest 
was  established  by  the  first  day  of  time,  and  there- 
fore the  first  day  of  time  corresponds  to  God's  rest 
day  in  so  far  as  it  established  the  fact.  It  is  the 
only  twenty-four  hour  day  that  does  in  any  sense 
correspond  to  God's  rest  day,  and  is  therefore  the 
starting  point  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  in  so  far  as 
God's  rest  day,  in  a  twenty- four  hour  sense,  is  to  be 
considered  the  true  starting  point. 

The  fourth  commandment  says,  ^^Six  days  shalt 
thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  work:  but  the  seventh 
day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God."  The 
reason  given  for  it  is,  '^For  in  six  days  the  Lord 
made  heaven  and  earth  .  .  .  and  rested  the 
seventh  day. "  It  is  clearly  seen  then  that  the  week- 
ly cycle  is  modeled  after  God's  original  seven-day 
cycle.  God's  rest  day  is  the  seventh  day  in  the 
model;  and  the  copy  must  be  a  perfect  imitation  of 
the  model.  Therefore  in  the  model  sense,  as  rest 
from  the  preceding  six  days  labor,  the  Sabbath  is 
and  always  has  been  the  seventh  day  of  the  week; 
but  in  the  time  sense  it  is  and  always  has  been  (ex- 


72  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

cept  to  the  Jews  during  the  Jewish  dispensation) 
the  first  day  of  the  week.  (Even  during  the  Jewish 
dispensation  it  was  the  first  day  of  the  week  accord- 
ing to  the  Jewish  calendar  which  had  its  begin- 
ing  in  Ex.  12  :  2  as  will  be  shown  in  Chapter  V.) 
The  model  week  thus  overlaps  the  time  week  so  that 
the  Sabbath  is  at  one  and  the  same  time  the  seventh 
day  of  the  one  and  the  first  day  of  the  other.  There 
is  sufficient  evidence  to  show  that  this  arrangement 
was  distinctly  involved  in  God's  plan. 

The  Sabbath  thus  acquired  at  once  a  two-fold  sig- 
nificance. As  the  seventh  day  of  the  model  week  it 
was  memorial  pointing  backward:  as  the  first  day 
of  the  time  week  it  was  typical  pointing  forward. 
Backward  to  the  completion  of  Creation :  forward  to 
the  completion  of  the  plan  of  Eedemption  in  the 
resurrection  of  Christ.  Backward  to  God  as  the 
Creator  and  Judge:  forward  to  God  in  Christ  as 
the  Redeemer  and  Savior.  Backward  to  the  power 
of  God :  forward  to  His  love.  Backward  to  justice : 
forward  to  hope.  Backward  to  law:  forward  to 
grace.  Backward  to  ^'Paradise  Lost:''  forward  to 
^'Paradise  Regained." 

The  Sabbath  cannot  be  a  perfect  institution  if  it 
fails  to  express  all  that  it  is  capable  of  expressing, 
and  only  in  its  combined  memorial  and  typical  sense 
was  the  primitive  Sabbath  capable  of  the  highest 
expression. 

Worship  in  the  sense  of  confession  of  past  sins, 
and  of  thanksgiving  for  past  blessings,  is  t^^oified 
in  the  seventh  dav  of  the  week  Sabbath:  but  in  the 
sense  of  prayer  for  future  guidance  and  blessing,  it 
is  typified  in  the  first  day  of  the  week  Sabbath. 


WEEKLY    CYCLE   AND   PEIMITIVE    SABBATH  73 

Hence  worship  in  its  full  sense  is  typified  in  the 
Sabbath  as  the  seventh  day  of  the  model  week  and 
as  the  first  day  of  the  time  week. 

Judgment  in  the  sense  of  condemnation,  or  ^Hhe 
letter  that  killeth,''  is  typified  in  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week  Sabbath;  but  in  the  sense  of  promise  and 
hope  in  forgiveness,  or  the  ^^ spirit  that  giveth  life," 
it  is  typified  in  the  first  day  of  the  week  Sabbath. 
Hence  judgment  in  its  full  sense  is  typified  in  the 
Sabbath  as  the  seventh  day  of  the  model  week  and 
as  the  first  day  of  the  time  week. 

Christ  was  the  ^^Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world''  (Rev.  13  :  8).  This  shows  that  the 
plan  of  redemption  was  in  the  mind  of  God  when 
He  created  the  world.  Then  both  the  Creation  and 
the  Redemption  were  in  His  mind  when  He  insti- 
tuted the  Sabbath.  The  Redemption  w^as  the  greater 
work  if  we  may  judge  by  the  cost :  for  the  Creation 
cost  God,  as  it  were,  but  the  breath  of  His  mouth 
(Ps.  33  :  6) ;  but  the  sacrifice  of  His  only  begotten 
Son  was  the  price  of  Redemption  (John  3  :  16).  ^^A 
greater  power  than  was  needed  to  create  worlds  is 
needed  to  re-create  a  lost  soul,  destroyed  by  sin." 
(A.  C.  Dixon). 

Our  worship  of  God  is  based  on  the  Redemption 
no  less  than  on  the  Creation.  Hence  the  Sabbath, 
as  the  God  appointed  means  of  worship  in  a  time 
sense,  relates  to  the  Redemption  no  less  than  to  the 
Creation,  and  should  therefore  point  typically  for- 
w^ard  to  the  one  as  well  as  memorially  backward  to 
the  other,  until  in  the  fulfilment  of  its  typical  sense 
it  resolved  itself  into  a  double  memorial. 

When  Adam  observed  the  Sabbath  after  his  fall, 


74  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

was  he  only  reminded  of  the  power  of  God  as  mani- 
fested in  the  Creation,  and  not  also  of  God's  pro- 
mise that  "the  seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise 
the  serpent's  head"  (Gen.  3  :  15)? 

It  might  be  asked,  Why  was  the  creation  reason 
the  only  reason  appended  to  the  fourth  command- 
ment in  Exodus  20  if  any  other  reasons  were  in- 
volved? The  evident  answer  is.  Only  the  reason 
for  the  rest  day  sense  of  the  Sabbath  is  given  be- 
cause only  the  rest  day  sense  of  the  Sabbath  is  in- 
volved in  the  fourth  commandment.  The  fourth 
commandment  does  not  command  worship  but  only 
rest.  Eelief  from  toil,  however,  makes  the  Sabbath 
the  only  suitable  day  for  worship,  and  the  worship 
instinct  is  implanted  in  man's  nature,  so  that  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Sabbath  was  meant  to  be 
a  day  of  worship  as  well  as  a  day  of  rest;  but  the 
worship  day  sense  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  expressed 
in  the  fourth  commandment,  which  is  sufficient  rea- 
son why  the  worship  day  reasons  are  not  appended. 

We  may  also  notice  that  the  fourth  commandment 
calls  forth  only  two  questions :  first,  what  right  has 
God  to  demand  a  part  of  our  time?  Second,  why 
should  the  week  consist  of  seven  days,  instead  of 
eight  or  some  other  number?  The  creation  reason 
answers  both  of  these  questions:  first,  In  the  fact 
that  God  is  the  Creator  of  all  things ;  second.  In  the 
fact  that  the  model  consists  of  seven  days  or  periods. 
God,  who  does  nothing  without  a  reason,  only 
answered  the  questions  necessarily  involved  in  the 
command. 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PKIMITIVE  SABBATH  75 

V 

The  original  Sabbatli  was  GocPs  Sabbath  and  also 
man's  first  Sabbath.  As  God's  Sabbath  it  was  the 
seventh  day  of  God's  week.  As  man's  Sabbath  it 
was  necessarily  the  first  day  of  man's  first  week. 
Thus  it  was  the  seventh  day  in  the  model  sense  and 
the  first  day  in  the  time  sense,  just  as  the  Christian 
Sabbath  is  to-day.  It  cannot  be  a  detriment  to  the 
copy  to  contain  any  feature  found  in  the  model. 

Again,  the  original  Sabbath  was  the  common 
ground  on  which  time  and  eternity  met,  or  the  day 
through  which  the  indefinite  days  of  eternity 
changed  into  the  definite  days  of  time  by  reason  of 
the  Infinite  mind  adapting  itself  to  the  finite  mind 
in  beginning  its  dealings  with  man.  This  feature 
of  the  model  is  also  recognized  in  the  common  bond 
relation  which  the  Sabbath  sustains  to  both  the 
model  week  and  the  time  week,  as  the  last  day  of 
the  one  and  the  first  day  of  the  other. 

Again,  the  creation  days  were  before  man's  days. 
This  fact  alone  would  make  them  stand  out  separate 
and  distinct  in  thought  from  man's  days,  as  if  be- 
longing to  a  separate  era,  so  that  the  first  six  days 
of  the  model  week,  from  Adam's  standpoint,  be- 
longed to  a  preceding  era  from  that  of  the  seventh 
day.  This  feature  of  the  model  is  fitly  represented 
by  the  first  six  days  of  every  week  in  the  model  sense 
belonging  to  the  preceding  week  in  the  time  sense. 
Thus  we  see  that  it  is  only  the  first  day  of  the  week 
Sabbath  that  fully  meets  all  the  requirements  of  the 
model. 

The  only  question  to  decide  is,  Does  the  SabbatH 
as  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  the  time  sense,  make 
it  any  less  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  in  the  model 


76  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

sense  as  rest  from  six  days  labor?  If  it  conforms 
to  the  model  in  fact,  tlien  no  time  division  can  de- 
stroy that  fact;  and  the  fact  is  the  real  thing  in 
God's  sight. 

The  word  ^'Sabbath''  means  rest,  and  rest  is  from 
labor  before,  not  from  labor  after,  and  hence,  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  case,  the  Sabbath  is,  in  a 
rest  day  sense,  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  because 
it  is  related  in  a  rest  day  sense  to  the  six  days  before, 
from  which  it  is  the  resting;  and  this  fact  no  time 
calendar  can  change.  The  Sunday  Sabbath,  as  truly 
as  the  Saturday  Sabbath,  is  rest  from  six  days' 
labor,  and  is  therefore  the  seventh  day  of  the  week 
in  a  Sabbath,  or  rest  day  sense,  and  is  thus  in  ac- 
cord with  the  creation  model  on  which  the  fourth 
commandment  is  based;  and  as  rest  from  six  days' 
labor  it  conforms  to  the  sole  condition  stated  in  the 
fourth  commandment. 

But  in  the  face  of  the  fact,  Adventists  deny  the 
fact  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  Sabbath  conforms 
to  the  condition  of  the  model.  They  seem  to  forget 
that  a  fact  is  a  fact,  and  that  nothing  in  heaven  or 
earth  can  change  a  fact  that  is  a  fact,  and  hence  be- 
cause it  is  a  fact,  there  is  no  fear  but  that  God  does 
recognize  it  as  a  fact. 

Adventists  read  into  the  fourth  commandment  con- 
ditions that  are  not  there,  just  as  if  they  had  a  com- 
mission from  God  to  supply  the  conditions  that  He 
accidentally  (?)  omitted.  What  right  have  they  to 
set  chronological  limitations  to  the  simple  command, 
**Six  days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  work: 
but  the  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy 
God,"  when  God  Himself  has  set  no  such  limitations 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PKIMITIVE  SABBATH  77 

to  it?  ^'Whatsoever  God  does,  it  shall  be  forever: 
nothing  can  be  put  to  it,  nor  anything  taken  from 
it"  (Eccl.  3  :  14).  Then  what  right  have  Adventists 
to  add,  as  they  practically  do,  the  words  ''of  the 
Aveek"  after  "seventh  day,"  making  it  read  "sev- 
enth day  of  the  week?"  They  charge  the  papal 
power  with  thinking  to  change  God's  times  and  law. 
They  certainly  lay  themselves  liable  to  the  same 
charge. 

Adventists  invariably  apply  the  word  Sabbath  as 
if  it  were  the  specific  Bible  name  of  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week.  That  this  is  purely  an  assumption, 
without  any  Bible  warrant,  is  shown  in  the  simple 
fact  that  the  Bible  applies  the  word  Sabbath  also 
to  certain  annual  days  which  Adventists  themselves 
call  annual  Sabbaths,  and  also  to  certain  years 
called  Sabbatical  years.  Then  the  word  Sabbath  is 
not  the  specific  Bible  name  of  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week,  for  it  is  not  exclusively  applied  to  that 
day  in  the  Bible.  The  day  is  always  designated, 
where  designated  at  all,  outside  of  the  word  Sab- 
bath: therefore  the  word  Sabbath  does  not  in  itself 
designate  the  day.  These  facts  clearly  show  that 
the  Bible  uses  the  word  Sabbath,  not  in  a  day  locat- 
ing sense,  but  in  a  day  defining  sense.  Therefore 
the  word  Sabbath  in  the  fourth  commandment  de- 
fines the  character  of  the  day  as  a  day  of  rest,  for 
the  word  Sabbath  simply  means  rest,  and  has  in  itself 
no  day  locating  application. 

Sunday  is  the  Sabbath  to  all  those  who  observe  it 
as  a  day  of  rest,  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word  Sab- 
bath, as  truly  as  Saturday  is  the  Sabbath  to  all  those 
who  observe  it  as  a  day  of  rest. 


,78 


SABBATH  THEOLOGY 


If  tlie  Sabbatli  law  only  specifies  the  Sabbath  as 
a  weekly  day  of  rest,  then,  in  the  law  sense,  any 
weekly  day  of  rest  is  truly  ^Hhe  Sabbath  of  the 
Lord''  to  all  those  who  observe  it  unto  the  Lord. 

The  question  as  to  what  day  of  the  first  week  of 
time  was  the  first  day  of  time  on  which  God  rested, 
is  a  question  of  historical  record,  and  therefore  to 
be  decided,  not  by  the  fourth  commandment,  but 
by  the  historical  record  of  the  Bible.  According  to 
the  Bible  record  (Gen.  1  :  27  to  2  :  2)  God  created 
man  on  the  sixth  day  of  creation  and  rested  the 
seventh  day.  Then  God  rested  on  Adam's  first  day 
in  a  chronological  (not  birthday)  sense.  Again,  ac- 
cording to  the  Bible  record  (Genesis  5  and  Deut. 
4  :  32)  time,  or  the  Bible  chronology,  began  with 
the  first  time  measured  day  of  Adam.  Then  the 
inevitable  conclusion  is  that  the  first  day  of  the  first 
week  of  time  was  the  first  day  of  time  on  which 
God  rested  and  therefore  represents  the  fact  of 
God's  rest  in  a  time  sense. 


If  first  things  are  God's  we  may  well  ask.  Is  the 
first  of  our  time  (represented  by  the  first  dixy  of 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PBIMITIVE  SABBATH  79 

the  week)  an  exception!  God  claimed  first  things 
as  His  own:  firstborn  (Ex.  13  :  2) ;  firstfruits  of  the 
harvest  (Lev.  23  :  10);  *  ^ firstfruits  of  all  thine  in- 
crease'^ (Prov.  3  :  9). 

The  heart  that  is  in  an  acceptable  attitude  toward 
God  will  of  its  own  accord  offer  Him  the  first  and 
best.  Thus  Abel  offered  the  firstlings  of  his  flock 
and  was  accepted  (Gen.  4:4). 

The  Sabbath  has  in  it  the  sense  of  a  sacrifice  or 
offering  of  one-seventh  of  our  time  to  God.  Has 
God  less  regard  for  the  first  of  our  time  than  for 
the  first  of  our  substance?  God  claims  one-seventh 
of  our  time — Shall  we  offer  Him  the  first  seventh  or 
the  last  seventh? 

No  one  questions  that  the  Bible  teaches  that  man's 
first  duty  is  obedience  to  God,  and  that  God 's  claims 
stand  first  in  all  things,  not  omitting  time.  Christ 
said,  *^Seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of  God"  (Matt. 
6  :  33).  Is  the  principle,  here  involved,  in  the  first 
or  in  the  last  day  of  the  week  Sabbath? 

Thus  it  is,  that  every  teaching  of  the  Bible  points 
to  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  true  Sabbath. 

A  memorial  is  simply  something  to  remind.  A 
copy,  or  imitation,  cannot  fail  to  remind  of  the  thing 
imitated,  and  is  the  most  natural,  direct,  and  ef- 
fective kind  of  memorial  in  that  it  carries  its 
memorial  meaning  in  itself.  A  fixed  day  memorial 
reminds  by  its  being  a  regularly  recurring  day  count 
from  the  event  memorialized.  The  Sabbath  as  a, 
memorial  involves  both  of  these  memorial  principles 
combined.  But  as  a  memorial  of  Creation  the 
former  is  the  essential  principle,  while  the  latter  is 


80  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

tlie  non-essential  principle,  as  can  be  easily  demon- 
strated by  mentally  eliminating  one  or  the  other  and 
noting  the  effect. 

First,  we  will  eliminate  the  former.  Now  imagine 
an  every  sixth,  or  eighth,  or  ninth  day  Sabbath, 
beginning  with  the  day  on  which  God  rested.  Notice 
that  the  fixed  day  principle  remains,  in  that  it  is 
a  regnlarly  recurring  count  from  God's  rest  day, 
but  the  imitation  of  the  model  principle  (in  the 
every  seventh  day  count)  only  has  been  eliminated. 
We  at  once  recognize  that  the  creation  memorial 
meaning  of  the  Sabbath  has  been  totally  destroyed. 

We  will  now,  on  the  other  hand,  eliminate  the 
fixed  day  principle  and  imagine  an  every  seventh 
day  Sabbath  not  beginning  with  the  day  on  which 
God  rested.  Notice  that  the  imitation  of  the  crea- 
tion model  (in  the  every  seventh  day  count)  re- 
mains, but  that  the  fixed  day  principle  (in  the  reg- 
ularly recurring  count  from  God's  rest  day)  has 
been  eliminated.  The  imitation,  or  copy  of  the 
creation  model  remains  perfect  and  intact.  It  can- 
not fail  to  remind  of  the  thing  imitated,  for  it  car- 
ries its  memorial  meaning  in  itself,  and  therefore 
its  memorial  meaning  cannot  be  mistaken.  And  if 
it  reminds  us  (as  it  cannot  fail  to  do)  of  the  Crea- 
tion and  God's  rest  afterward,  it  has  accomplished 
its  memorial  purpose.  Therefore  we  recognize  that 
the  creation  memorial  meaning  of  the  Sabbath  has 
not  been  materially  affected. 

4  —  4=0.  Here  the  simple  fact  that  nothing  re- 
mains shows  that  the  whole  numerical  value  of  4  has 
been  subtracted  from  it.  Now  if  we  subtract  the 
every  seventh  day  element  from  the  Sabbath,  noth- 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PEIMITIVE   SABBATH  81 

ing  remains  of  its  creation  memorial  meaning,  which 
proves  with  mathematical  accuracy  that  the  whole 
of  the  creation  memorial  value  of  the  Sabbath  is  in 
its  every  seventh  day  element. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  simple  fact  that  the  fixed 
day  element  of  the  Sabbath,  in  itself  (with  the  every 
seventh  day  element  omitted),  could  not  have  the 
slightest  creation  memorial  meaning,  proves  also 
(with  mathematical  accuracy)  that  the  fixed  day  ele- 
ment has  not  the  slightest  creation  memorial  value. 

This,  however,  does  not  prove  that  the  fixed  day 
element  of  the  Sabbath  has  no  memorial  value,  but 
only  that  it  has  no  creation  memorial  value.  It 
could  be  a  memorial  of  God's  rest  day  after  the 
Creation,  but  no  more  than  it  would  be  if  it  were  an 
every  eighth,  instead  on  an  every  seventh,  day  count 
from  that  event.  While  the  fixed  day  element  may 
be  a  memorial  of  God's  rest  day,  it  stops  right  there. 
But  the  every  seventh  day  element  is  a  memorial  of 
God's  rest  day  in  its  relation  to  the  Creation;  and 
it  is  only  in  its  relation  to  the  Creation  that  it  has 
any  place  in  the  creation  memorial  meaning  of  the 
Sabbath.  Hence  the  fixed  day  element  of  the  Sab- 
bath has  absolutely  no  creation  memorial  value. 
Therefore,  if  God  can  use  it,  with  or  without  chang- 
ing the  day,  to  commemorate  some  other  memorial 
event  in  His  dealings  with  man,  the  result  is  clear 
gain.  For  since  God  made  the  Sabbath  a  means  to 
an  end,  its  value  in  His  sight  is  in  proportion  to  its 
efficiency  as  a  means  to  an  end. 

Adventists  say  that  God  cannot  change  the  day  of 
His  rest  any  more  than  we  can  change  our  birthday, 
and  therefore  God  Himself  cannot  change  the  day  of 


82  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

the  Sabbath  without  creating  the  heavens  and  the 
earth  over  again  in  a  different  number  of  days.  Of 
course  this  assertion  is  based  on  the  twenty-four 
hour  creation-day  theory ;  otherwise,  their  own  argu- 
ment w^ould  go  to  prove  that  the  first  day  of  the 
week  was  the  unchangeable  day  of  the  Sabbath. 

We  may  accept  the  first  part  of  the  assertion  at 
its  full  value,  for  God  cannot  change  the  relation  of 
His  rest  to  the  six  days  of  Creation;  and  the  crea- 
tion reason  will  ever  remain  as  the  reason  why  the 
Sabbath  is  an  every  seventh  day  Sabbath  instead  of 
an  every  eighth  day  Sabbath  (or  some  other 
number). 

In  a  time  sense  the  first  day  of  the  week  has  al- 
ways been  and  always  will  be  the  weekly  counter- 
part of  the  day  of  the  first  v/eek  of  time  on  which 
the  fact  of  God's  rest,  in  a  birthday  sense,  w^as  es- 
tablished; for  God  undoubtedly  rested  on  the  first 
day  of  the  first  week  of  time.  That  God  never  lost 
sight  of  this  fact  is  evidenced  in  the  Resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ  on  that  day, — else  why  did  God  thus 
crown  the  first  day  above  every  other  day  of  the 
week?  Would  God  thus  honor  any  other  day  above 
the  seventh  day  of  the  week  if  that  were  the  day  en- 
titled to  the  highest  honor? 

But  to  return  to  the  assertion  that  God  Himself 
cannot  change  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  without  creat- 
ing the  heavens  and  the  earth  over  again  in  a  dif- 
ferent number  of  days.  Adventists  seem  to  think 
this  is  a  clinching  argument,  instead  of  a  transpar- 
ent absurdity  as  it  really  is.  We  cannot  change  our 
birthday,  but  that  fact  does  not  compel  us  to  cele- 
brate it  or  prevent  us  from  celebrating  some  other 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PRIMITIVE  SABBATH  83 

day  as  the  memorial  of  some  other  event.  The  Sab- 
bath is  not  God^s  birthday,  but  simply  a  weekly  day 
of  rest  appointed  by  Him  to  commemorate  an  event. 
Can  any  one  deny  that  God  has  the  power  and  right 
to  suspend  one  appointment  and  appoint  some  other 
day  as  His  Sabbath  to  commemorate  some  other 
event?  And  is  it  an  impossible  thing  that  He  could 
thus  make  it  a  double  memorial  by  reason  of  its  two 
distinct  memorial  principles! — and,  through  its 
every  seventh  day  principle  commemorate  His  rest 
from  Creation  and  through  its  fixed  or  birthday 
principle  commemorate  to  the  Israelites  their  rest 
from  bondage? 

There  are  two  copies  of  the  ten  commandments  in 
the  Bible  (Exodus  20  and  Deuteronomy  5).  The 
first  purports  to  be  the  copy  as  spoken  by  God  in 
the  hearing  of  the  people  (Ex.  20  :  1) :  the  second 
purports  (as  we  shall  show  later)  to  be  the  copy  as 
Avritten  by  God  on  tables  of  stone  (Deut.  5  :  22). 
In  the  first,  the  creation  reason  (Ex.  20  :  11)  is 
appended  to  the  fourth  commandment:  in  the  sec- 
ond, the  Exodus  reason  (Deut.  5  :  15)  is  appended 
to  the  fourth  commandment.  Both  reasons  there- 
fore stand  in  exactly  the  same  relation  to  the  fourth 
commandment.  The  only  simple,  direct,  and  satis- 
factory explanation  of  this  fact  is  in  the  double 
memorial  theory. 

Instead  of  Adventists  keeping  the  day  of  the  time 
week  on  which  God  first  rested,  as  they  fondly  imag- 
ine, they  are  keeping  the  day  fixed  by  the  manna 
to  commemorate  to  the  Israelites  their  deliverance 
from  Egyptian  bondage,  and  therefore  only  a  Jew-^ 
ish  ordinance. 


84  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Jews  who  reject  Christ  and  deny  the  Resurrec- 
tion, still  consistently  keep  the  day  appointed  by 
the  manna  in  commemoration  of  their  deliverance 
from  Egypt,  but  Adventists  have  no  such  reason 
for  keeping  it,  and  are  therefore  Judaizers  in  the 
most  inexcusable  sense.  However,  they  cannot  be 
accused  of  keeping  the  Sabbath  in  any  sense  in 
which  they  do  not  mean  to  keep  it,  and  they  claim 
to  keep  it  solely  in  commemoration  of  the  Crea- 
tion. But  its  creation  testimony  is  only  in  its  every 
seventh  day  element.  The  Jewish  Sabbath  and  the 
Christian  Sabbath  equally  commemorate  the  Crea- 
tion in  their  every  seventh  day  element ;  but  one  com- 
morates  the  Exodus  and  the  other  the  Resurrection 
in  their  fixed  day  element.  Adventists  gain  nothing 
on  the  one  hand,  but  on  the  other  lose  all  of  the 
Sabbath's  Resurrection  blessing.  (This  point  will 
be  further  discussed  later). 

The  moral  sense  of  the  Sabbath  is  in  its  every 
seventh  day  element:  the  economic  sense  is  in  its 
fixed  day  element.  It  is  a  moral  duty  to  consecrate 
a  part  of  our  time  to  God's  work  and  our  own 
spiritual  welfare:  it  is  an  economic  necessity  that 
all  should  observe,  so  far  as  possible,  the  same  day. 

The  moral  law  deals  only  with  moral  questions. 
The  economic  element  of  the  Sabbath,  therefore,  has 
no  place  in  the  moral  law.  The  whole  Sabbath  dis- 
pute arises  simply  from  attempting  to  read  the 
economic  element  of  the  Sabbath  into  the  fourth 
commandment  of  the  moral  law,  where  it  does  not 
belong. 

No  law  can  be  justly  enforced  beyond  its  strict 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PRIMITIVE  SABBATH  85 

literal  rendering;  and  no  literal  rendering  of  the 
fourth  commandment  can  make  it  fix  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath,  for  it  simply  says,  *^Six  days  shalt  thou 
labor,  and  do  all  thy  work:  but  the  seventh  day  is 
the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God,''  and  any  day 
after  six  is  the  seventh. 

The  trouble  lies  right  here:  people  recognize  the 
necessity  of  the  economic  element  of  the  Sabbath 
and  therefore  assume  that  it  must  be  included  in 
the  fourth  commandment.  But  God  is  fully  able  to 
take  care  of  the  economic  element  outside  of  the 
moral  law. 

God  certainly  did  not  underrate  the  importance  of 
the  economic  element  of  the  Sabbath.  He  fixed  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath  at  the  beginning  of  time  in  the 
day  on  which  He  rested.  He  fixed  it  for  the  Israel- 
ites by  the  manna.  And  He  fixed  it  for  the  Chris- 
tian world  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Notice  that  in  each  case  God  fixed  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  by  means  outside  of  the  moral  law,  show- 
ing that  the  moral  law,  in  itself,  does  not  fix  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath ;  else  it  would  not  have  been  nec- 
essary for  God  to  ^x  the  day  outside  of  the  moral 
law.  (This  subject  will  be  more  fully  discussed 
later). 

The  theory  that  God's  rest  after  Creation  was 
the  origin  of  the  weekly  Sabbath  is  the  theory  most 
commonly  held  by  others  as  w^ell  as  Adventists.  Still 
there  are  some  who  hold  that  there  was  no  Sabbath 
till  it  was  given  to  the  Israelites  by  the  manna. 

That  the  Sabbath  began  soon  after  the  Creation 
is    clearly    implied,  though  the  law  was  formally 


86  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

given  to  the  Israelites  nearly  2,500  years  later  (ac- 
<3ording  to  Usher's  Chronology). 

1.  If  'Hhe  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,"  as  Christ 
said,  it  is  not  likely  that  God  withheld  it  from  man 
for  2,500  years  and  then  gave  it  only  to  the  Israelites. 

2.  At  the  giving  of  the  manna  (Ex.  16  :  26-28) 
God's  commandments  and  laws  are  referred  to  as 
if  already  existing  and  the  Sabbath  law  was  direct- 
ly involved  in  God's  rebuke.  Hence  it  must  have 
been  one  of  the  already  existing  commandments,  or 
laws  of  God. 

3.  The  week  is  incidentally  mentioned  in  Gen. 
29  :  27,  showing  that  it  was  then  a  well  recognized 
division  of  time. 

4.  Noah  was  warned  seven  days  before  the  be- 
ginning of  the  flood  (Gen.  7:4),  and  twice  he  waited 
seven  days  before  sending  the  dove  forth  from  the 
ark  (Gen.  8  :  10-12).  This  implies  that  the  weekly 
cycle  existed  before  the  flood. 

5.  The  existence  of  the  weekly  cycle  presupposes 
the  existence  of  the  Sabbath ;  for  the  Sabbath  would 
necessitate  the  weekly  cycle. 

6.  The  Sabbath  law  begins  with  the  word  * 'Re- 
member," which  implies  the  previous  existence  of 
the  Sabbath. 

7.  The  most  reasonable  inference  is  that  the 
weekly  cycle  and  the  Sabbath  existed  as  long  as  the 
reason  therefor  (creation  model)  existed,  and  hence 
from  the  day  on  which  God  rested  and  completed  the 
creation  model. 

8.  Gen.  2  :  3  says  that  God  blessed  and  sancti- 
fied the  day  on  which  He  rested,  because  He  had 
rested  on  that  day.    The  natural  conclusion  is  that 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PEIMITIVE  SABBATH  87 

He  blessed  it  as  soon  as  the  reason  for  blessing  it 
existed,  or  as  soon  as  He  had  rested  upon  it, — not 
2,500  years  after  at  the  giving  of  the  Law  on  Sinai. 

9.  The  most  fitting  memorial  possible  of  the  six 
creation  days  would,  undoubtedly,  be  the  dividing 
of  all  time  into  six-day  work  periods;  and  God 
would  use  nothing  short  of  the  most  fitting  memo- 
rial. And  this  memorial  scheme  would  necessarily 
begin  with  the  beginning  of  time,  and  the  every 
seventh  day  of  rest  was  the  essential  contrasting 
element  necessary  to  thus  divide  time  into  six-day 
work  periods.  Nothing  short  of  this  great  memorial 
scheme  can  satisfactorily  explain  the  existence  of 
the  Sabbath  as  a  memorial  of  Creation,  and  neces- 
sarily fixes  its  beginning  at  the  beginning  of  time. 

10.  Further  evidence  of  the  primitive  Sabbath 
is  found  in  the  testimony  of  sun-worship  (see  Chap- 
ter IV.)  and  in  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  calen- 
dars (see  Chapter  VL). 

Now  if  the  Sabbath  existed  before  the  giving  of 
the  Law  on  Sinai,  then  it  must  have  had  a  prior 
origin,  and  Gen.  2  :  3  is  the  only  prior  origin  that 
can  be  found  in  the  Bible. 

The  weekly  cycle  was  not  an  accident,  so  must 
have  an  origin.  There  is  no  such  natural  division 
of  time,  so  it  cannot  have  its  origin  in  nature.  The 
astronomical  names  given  to  the  days  of  the  week 
do  not  necessarily  suggest  its  origin;  for  the  names 
could  have  been  given  later.  It  is  well  established 
that  the  week  is  older  than  the  names.  It  existed 
before  there  was  any  systematic  knowledge  of 
astronomy.  La  Place  says,  ^^The  week  is  perhaps 
the  most  ancient  and  incontestable  monument   of 


88  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

human  knowledge.''  It  is  easy  to  see  how  the  Sab- 
bath given  by  God  to  Adam  at  the  beginning  would 
lead  to  such  a  division  of  time. 

From  these  reasons  we  confidently  conclude  that 
God  instituted  the  Sabbath  at  or  near  the  beginning 
of  time. 

Again,  there  are  some  who  hold  that  the  original 
weekly  cycle,  and  with  it  the  original  day  of  the 
Sabbath  have  been  lost. 

It  is  only  reasonable  to  suppose  that  God  is  the 
preserver  as  w^ell  as  the  originator  of  the  weekly 
cycle. 

1.  If  the  dividing  of  all  time  into  six-day  periods, 
commemorative  of  Creation,  was  God's  purpose  in 
originating  the  weekly  cycle, — as  we  are  justified  in 
concluding  from  the  very  perfection  of  the  scheme 
as  a  memorial  of  Creation, — then  God  would  also 
preserve  the  weekly  cycle  in  the  carrying  out  of  the 
scheme. 


2. 


0 


•e.  .  .  .  o 


This    diagram 
shows  that  the 


0 

o 

Sabbath  (o)  may  be  changed  from  the  first  to  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week,  or  vice  versa  without  chang- 
ing the  weekly  cycle.  But  any  other  arrangement 
would  cause  a  readjustment  of  the  weekly  cycle; 
for  the  Sabbath,  as  the  contrasting  or  dividing  ele- 
ment, must,  if  according  to  nature,  be  either  the  first 
or  the  last  day  of  the  week  in  order  to  define  the 
limits  of  the  week. 

Now  if  God  had  a  definite  purpose  in  changing  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath,  by  the  manna,  from  the  first  to 
the  seventh,  instead  of  to  some  other  day  of  the  week, 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PRIMITIVE  SABBATH  89 

it  must  have  been  to  preserve  the  original  weekly 
cycle,  showing  that  the  preservation  of  the  weekly 
cycle  was  a  part  of  God's  original  plan.  (The  change 
from  the  first  to  the  seventh  day  involved  the  least 
possible  change  of  the  original  order.  But  even 
this  implies  the  temporary  character  of  the  change, 
— like  a  modulation  in  music.) 

3.  Adam,  Lamech,  Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob, 
Joseph.  This  short,  direct,  unbroken  line  reaches 
from  Adam  to  the  sojourn  in  Egypt;  during  all  of 
which  time  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  would  naturally 
become  more  and  more  fixed  through  the  ever-in- 
creasing force  of  habit. 

The  fact  that  this  was  the  chosen  line  through 
which  God  preserved  His  precepts,  one  of  which 
was  the  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  is  in  itself  an 
assurance  that  the  Sabbath  was  observed  during  all 
this  timiC;  and  the  ever-increasing  force  of  habit  is 
sufficient  assurance  that  the  day  was  not  changed. 

Adam  received  the  appointment  of  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  direct  from  God,  and  we  can  safely  assume 
that  during  the  nine  hundred  and  thirty  years  of  his 
life,  reaching  down  to  the  ninth  generation,  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath  was  not  changed.  This  would  be  suf- 
ficient time  to  cause  the  day  to  be  regarded  as  fixed 
and  unchangeable.  Adam  lived  till  Lamech  was 
fifty-six  years  of  age,  and  Lamech  lived  to  within 
five  years  of  the  flood  and  till  Noah  was  five  hundred 
and  ninety-five  years  of  age.  Between  Adam  and 
Noah  there  was  but  the  break  of  one  hundred  and 
twenty-six  years.  Of  Noah  it  was  said,  that  he 
''was  a  just  man  and  perfect  in  his  generation,''  and 
that  he  '^ walked  with  God"  (Gen.  6  :  4),  which  is 


90  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

sufficient  assurance  that  he  kept  all  of  God's  pre- 
cepts as  handed  down  to  him,  including  the  Sabbath. 

Then  it  is  practically  certain  that  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  was  not  changed  before  the  flood.  Noah 
and  his  family  alone  survived  the  flood;  and  the 
original  day  of  the  Sabbath  stands  with  all  the  time 
honored  precedence  which  its  existence  before  the 
flood  now  gives  to  it. 

JSToah  lived  to  the  tenth  generation  after  the  flood, 
and  till  Abraham  was  fifty-eight  years  of  age.  Thus 
Noah's  influence  as  the  recognized  patriarch  of  the 
age  would  insure  the  preservation  of  the  original 
day  of  the  Sabbath  during  his  life. 

Of  Abraham  God  said,  he  ^  ^  obeyed  my  voice,  and 
kept  my  charge,  my  commandments,  my  statutes, 
and  my  laws"  (Gen.  26  :  5) ;  and  again  He  said,  ^'I 
know  him,  that  he  will  command  his  children  and  his 
household  after  him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment."  (Gen.  18  :  19). 
Isaac,  Jacob  and  Joseph  obeyed  God  and  wor- 
shiped Him,  which  practically  insures  the  unbroken 
continuance  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  Egyptian  bond- 
age. From  the  death  of  Joseph  to  the  birth  of 
Moses  was  about  64  years.  (Compare  marginal 
dates).  The  faithfulness  with  which  the  precepts 
of  God  were  handed  down  from  parent  to  child  dur- 
ing the  Egyptian  bondage,  is  illustrated  by  the 
mother  of  Moses ;  for,  as  the  result  of  her  teaching, 
Moses  cast  his  lot  with  the  Israelites  and  refused  to 
be  called  the  son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter. 

The  day  of  tlie  Sabbath  thus  handed  down,  as  un- 
doubtedly taught,  in  unbroken  line  from  the  Crea- 
tion would  naturally  be  regarded  as  fixed  and  un- 


WEEKLY  CYCLE  AND  PEIMITIVE  SABBATH  91 

cliangeable ;  and  nothing  short  of  a  providence  bear- 
ing the  unmistakable  mark  of  God's  authority — as 
was  the  giving  of  the  manna — could  have  changed 
it.  If  the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath  was  not 
changed  before  the  Exodus,  then  evidently  the 
original  weekly  cycle  remained  unchanged  also. 

Viewed,  in  a  general  sense,  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  ever-increasing  force  of  habit  when  once 
formed,  the  original  weekly  cycle  unchanged  be- 
comes the  normal  and  probable;  and  the  reverse, 
the  abnormal  and  improbable  phase  of  the  question. 
From  which  it  would  inevitably  follow,  that  the  for- 
mer would  constitute  the  general  rule,  and  the  latter 
the  exception  all  down  the  ages. 

The  present  weekly  cycle,  which  exists  practically 
over  all  the  world,  and  from  unknown  antiquity,  is 
certainly  a  practical  test  of  the  ever-increasing  force 
of  habit  as  a  sure  and  reliable  principle.  And  this 
principle  which  has  proved  itself  from  unknown  an- 
tiquity is  just  as  sure  to  hold  true  prior  as  since. 

Moreover,  as  we  go  back  toward  antiquity,  and 
the  numerous  branches  of  the  human  race  narrow 
down  toward  the  one  common  head  in  Noah,  the 
probability  of  any  change  in  the  weekly  cycle  nar- 
rows down  in  the  same  proportion. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

SUISr  WOKSHIP  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  DAY  NAMES. 

Sun-worsliip  was  "undoubtedly  tTie  oldest  and  the 
most  nniversal  form  of  idolatry.  Dr.  Talbot  W. 
Chambers  {Old  Testament  Student,  January  1886) 
says,  ^'The  universality  of  this  form  of  idolatry  is 
something  remarkable.  It  seems  to  have  prevailed 
everywhere. ' ' 

An  Adventist  writer  (Milton  C.  Wilcox — The 
Lord's  Day,  page  35),  after  quoting  from  a  num- 
ber of  authorities  on  the  subject,  says,  *^In  brief, 
sun-worship  prevailed  everywhere,  and  in  some  form 
or  other  permeated  all  heathen  vv^orship.''  Again 
(page  88),  after  referring  to  the  chapter  on  sun- 
worship,  he  says,  ^'Evidence  sufficient  is  there  given 
to  show  that  the  worship  of  the  sun  is  one  of  the 
oldest  and  most  universal  forms  of  idolatry,  and 
that  Sunday  was  the  special  day  honored  by  the  sun- 
worshipers.  ' ' 

There  must  be  a  reason.  Note  first  the  univer- 
sality of  this  worship.    Note  second  the  uniformitjr 


SUN-   WOESHIP  93 

of  tile  day  of  sun-worship  among  these  different  na- 
tions. These  two  facts  put  together  prove  con- 
clusively that  sun-worship  among  these  different 
nations  had  a  common  origin;  and  that  common 
origin  could  only  have  been  the  original  worship 
of  God:  for  try  as  we  may,  it  is  absolutely  impos- 
sible otherwise  to  satisfactorily  account  for  the  uni- 
versality of  sun-worship  and  the  uniformity  of  the 
day  among  all  the  widely  separated  peoples  of  the 
earth. 

Sun-worship,  in  its  very  nature,  was  the  most 
natural  perversion  possible  of  the  original  worship 
of  God;  and  because  it  w^as  the  most  natural,  it  was 
the  most  insidious  and  dangerous.  To  most  effect- 
ively accomplish  his  purpose,  Satan  would  assuredly 
make  use  of  the  most  natural  means. 

God  is  invisible,  and  therefore  man,  in  his  in- 
ability to  comprehend  the  invisible,  sought  some 
visible  object  through  which  to  worship  God;  and 
he  could  not  fail  to  adopt  the  most  suitable  object  in 
nature  for  that  purpose.  This  perversion  of  the 
worship  of  God  would  naturally  be  gradual.  Then 
at  what  point  was  the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath 
changed,  if  it  was  changed? 

Sun-worshipers  would  evidently  hold  to  the  ori- 
ginal day  of  the  Sabbath  just  as  tenaciously  as  did 
the  true  worshipers  of  God.  Both,  undoubtedly,  re- 
garded it  as  fixed  and  unchangeable  because  handed 
down  from  before  the  flood.  And  as  sun-worshipers 
were  also  descendants  of  Noah,  they  must  also  have 
held  the  same  traditions  regarding  the  origin  of  the 
Sabbath  as  did  the  Hebrew  branch  of  the  race. 

At  the  beginning  of  sun-worship,  no  doubt  many 


94  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

good  men  regarded  it  as  a  legitimate  modification  of 
the  worship  of  God,  and  as  an  almost  necessary  ex- 
pedient. In  view  of  man's  inability  to  comprehend 
the  invisible,  it  was  doubtless  thought  to  be  a  very 
practical  and  effective  expedient  to  represent  God 
by  the  most  suitable  visible  object,  and  worship  Him 
through  the  medium  of  that  visible  object.  Satan 
no  doubt  presented  reasons  as  plausible  as  he  did  to 
Eve,  but  he  was  certainly  too  shrewd  to  suggest 
changing  the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath.  Nor 
would  it  be  to  his  interest  to  do  so,  for  he  could  ac- 
complish his  purpose  more  effectively  by  pervert- 
ing the  day  that  God  appointed  than  by  setting  up 
a  rival  institution.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that 
just  as  sun-worship  was  a  perversion  of  the  original 
worship  of  God  so  the  day  of  sun-worship  was  but 
the  perverted  day  of  the  original  Sabbath. 

Only  in  the  fact  that  the  day  of  sun-worship  was 
universally  regarded  as  a  fixed  unchangeable  every 
seventh  day  from  the  beginning  of  time  is  it  possible 
to  account  for  the  absolute  uniformity  of  the  day 
of  sun-worship  throughout  the  world.  Just  so  sure- 
ly therefore  as  the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath  was 
handed  down  through  the  true  worship  of  God,  so 
surely  also  was  it  handed  down  through  sun-wor- 
ship ;  for  the  same  conditions  worked  just  as  surely 
to  the  same  end  in  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

The  very  name  *^ Sunday"  is  a  standing  witness 
that  it  was  the  day  of  Sun-worship,  and  therefore 
the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath  perverted.  This 
becomes  practically  certain  when  we  consider  for  a 
moment  that  the  ever  increasing  force  of  habit 
would  only  make  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  more  and 


SUN    WORSHIP  95 

more  fixed  as  time  went  on,  and  that  people  would 
soon  come  to  regard  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  as  fixed 
and  unchangeable,  just  as  Adventists  do  now. 

Naturally,  during  their  bondage  in  Egypt,  many 
of  the  Israelites  yielded  to  the  influence  of  sun-wor- 
ship and  evidently  God  could  best  remove  the  influ- 
ence of  sun-w^orship  by  changing  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath; and  only  thus  could  the  Sabbath  be  made  a 
peculiar  sign  between  God  and  the  Israelites 
(Ex.  31  :  13,17 ;  Ezek.  20  :  12-20). 

But  while  God  temporarily  abandoned  the  day  of 
the  original  Sabbath  to  sun-worship,  it  was  only  to 
re-establish  it  all  the  more  gloriously  in  the  Resur- 
rection of  His  own  Son,  who  is  the  ^^Sun  (S-u-n)  of 
Eigliteousness''  (Mai.  4  :  2)  and  the  ^^Light  of  the 
world''  (John  1  :  7,9;  8  :  12).  ^' Arise  shine;  for 
thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is  risen 
upon  thee.  For  behold,  the  darkness  shall  cover 
the  earth,  and  gross  darkness  the  people:  but  the 
Lord  shall  arise  upon  thee  and  his  glory  shall  be 
seen  upon  thee.  And  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to 
thy  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising.'' 
(Isa.  60  ;  1,3.) 

What  is  the  light  of  the  physical  world  but  the 
Sunf  What  more  appropriate  day  than  Sunday  to 
worship  Jesus  Christ,  the  ^^Sun  of  Eighteousness, " 
the  worship  of  whom,  as  the  true  antitype  of  the 
sun,  should  supplant  the  worship  of  the  sun.  Where 
is  pagan  sun-worship  to-day? 

Thus  the  Resurrection  Sabbath  with  its  Resur- 
rection Gospel  has  accomplished  that  which  the 
Saturday  Sabbath,  with  its  exodus  testimony  and 
Jewish  limitations,  utterly  failed  to  accomplish.    No 


96  f  SABBATH      THEOLOGY** 

wonder  that  Satan  is  using  every  possible  means  to' 
cast  discredit  on  the  Resurrection  Sabbath. 

Satan's  attempts  to  thwart  the  plans  of  God  may 
seem  to  prosper  for  awhile,  but  his  temporary  suc- 
cess only  makes  his  final  overthrow  all  the  more 
complete  to  the  giory  of  God.  ^'0  Lucifer,  son  of 
the  morning!  How  art  thou  cast  down  to  the 
ground,  which  did  weaken  the  nations!  For  thou 
hast  said  in  thine  heart,  I  will  ascend  into  heaven, 

I  will  exalt  my  throne  above  the  stars  of  God I 

will  be  like  the  most  High.''     (Isa.  14  :  12-14). 

Permanent  abandonment  of  the  original  day  of 
the  Sabbath  would  have  meant  surrender  to  Satan 
of  God's  rightful  claim.  Adventists  try  hard  to 
associate  pagan  sun-worship  with  the  Christian 
Sabbath.  Do  Christians  worship  the  sun  on  Sunday 
any  more  than  Adventists  worship  Saturn  on  Sat- 
urday! Pagan  writers  ignorantly  attributed  the 
origin  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  to  the  worship  of 
Saturn,  just  as  Adventist  writers  to-day  attribute 
the  origin  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  to  the  worship 
of  the  sun. 

That  Christians  worship  on  Sunday  purely  in 
commemoration  of  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ 
is  a  fact  too  well  known  for  Adventists  to  plead 
ignorance ;  and  when  they  assert  that  the  Christian 
Sunday  Sabbath  has  its  origin  in  sun-worship,  they 
assert  that  which  they  cannot  fail  to  know  is  not 
true.  It  is  impossible  to  avoid  the  conclusion.  They 
surely  know  that  they  cannot  change  a  fact  by  deny- 
ing it,  and  that  the  fact  is  the  real  thing  in  God's 
sight.  And  if  a  fact  is  a  fact,  there  is  no  fear  but 
that  God  will  recognize  it  as  a  fact. 


SUN"   WORSHIP  97 

ORIGIN"   OF   THE   DAY  NAMES. 

The  naming  of  the  days  is  generally  credited 
either  to  the  ancient  Egyptians  or  to  the  Babylon- 
ians, who,  several  centuries  before  the  Exodus, 
named  the  days  after  the  sun,  moon,  and  five  then 
known  planets,  beginning  with  the  farthest  and  tak- 
ing them  in  the  order  of  distance, — thus  Saturn, 
Jupiter,  Mars,  Sun,  Venus,  Mercury,  Moon, — then 
supposing  each  in  rotation  to  rule  over  one  hour 
(the  day  being  divided  into  twenty-for  hours),  they 
named  each  day  after  the  one  that  ruled  over  its 
first  hour;  thus,  Saturday  (Saturn's  day),  Sunday 
(Sun's  day),  Monday  (Moon's  day),  Tuesday 
(Tiw's  OT  Mar's  day),  Wednesday  '(Woden's  or 
Mercury's  day),  Thursday  (Thor's  or  Jupiter's 
day),  Friday  (Freia's  or  Venus'  day).  The  last  four 
being  later  derived  from  the  deities  that  were  sup- 
posed to  rule  over  the  corresponding  planets. 

It  will  be  seen  that  Saturday  is  the  first  in  the  list 
as  thus  derived.  This  is  doubtless  the  origin  of  the 
statements  by  Dio  Casius  and  Diodorus  Siculus,  that 
Saturday  was  the  first  day  of  the  Egyptian  week. 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  the  order  of  rotation 
would  not  be  affected  by  beginning  the  week  with 
Sunday,  or  any  other  day,  instead  of  Saturday. 
Thus  the  derivation  of  the  names  did  not  necessarily 
^Ji  the  beginning  of  the  week,  but  only  the  order  of 
rotation,  and  therefore  did  not  necessarily  involve 
any  change  in  the  original  weekly  cycle,  in  which, 
undoubtedly,  the  day  of  sun-worship  was  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  The  names  were  necessarily  first 
derived  and  afterward  applied,  and  the  application, 


93  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

rather  than  the  derivation,  would  determine  the  be- 
' ginning  of  the  week. 

A  starting  point  was  necessary  in  applying  the 
names,  and  the  natural  application  of  the  name 
Sun's  day  to  the  day  of  sun-worship,  which  was 
already  an  established  day,  was  the  only  practical 
starting  point.  Also,  the  sun  is  so  far  superior  in 
rank  to  the  planets  that  it  could  not  fail  to  be  re- 
garded as  first  in  every  real  sense.  Also,  the  day 
of  sun-worship  was  doubtless  handed  down  by  tra- 
dition as  the  first  day  of  time.  If  these  considera- 
tions had  their  due  weight,  as  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt,  they  could  not  fail  to  rank  Sunday  as  the  first 
day  of  the  week  as  handed  down  to  the  present  day. 

The  most  natural  and  reasonable  conclusion, 
therefore,  is  that  Sunday  was  the  first  and  Saturday 
the  seventh  day  of  the  universally  recognized 
week  at  the  time  of  the  Exodus.  Adventists  agree 
with  us  on  this  point,  and  certain  it  is,  that  there 
is  no  conclusive  proof  to  the  contrary. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE    JEWISH    CALENDAR. 

It  is  claimed  that  for  many  centuries  the  Jew- 
ish calendar  has  been  lost.  Hence  the  different 
theories  in  regard  to  it.  The  Jewish  Sabbath,  how- 
ever, furnishes  very  important  evidence  in  the  case. 

If  God  withheld  the  manna  on  every  seventh  day 
for  forty  years,  that  unquestionably  made  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath  a  fixed  day  of  the  week.  *'Six  days  ye 
shall  gather  it  but  on  the  seventh  day  there  shall  be 
none.''  (Ex.  16  :  26).  This  is  the  rule  or  law  of 
the  manna  on  the  authority  of  the  Bible.  ^'And  the 
children  of  Israel  did  eat  manna  forty  years."  (Ex. 
16  :  35).  Now  in  the  absence  of  the  slightest  trace 
in  the  Bible  of  any  change  in  the  law  of  the  manna, 
or  that  there  was  any  exception  to  it,  we  have  no 
right  to  assume  that  there  was  only  on  the  most 
absolute  proof;  and  since  there  is  no  proof  to  the 
contrary,  we  must  conclude  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
w^as  a  fixed  day  of  the  week.  There  are  certain 
texts  that  seem  to  make  the  Jewish  Sabbaths  also 
fixed  days  of  the  year. 


100  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

The  fifteenth  day  of  the  first  month  was  always 
the  Passover  Sabbath  (Lev.  23  :  5-7),  or  yearly 
memorial  of  the  Exodus.  Pentecost  Vv^as  the  yearly 
memorial  of  the  giving  of  the  Law  fifty  days  after 
the  Exodus,  and  must  therefore  always  be  fifty  days 
after  the  Passover  Sabbath:  otherwise  it  has  no 
memorial  significance. 

*^And  ye  shall  count  unto  you  from  the  morrow 
after  the  Sabbath,  from  the  day  that  ye  brought  the 
sheaf  of  the  wave  offering;  seven  Sabbaths  shall  be 
complete;  even  unto  the  morrow  after  the  seventh 
Sabbath  shall  ye  number  fifty  days"  (Lev.  23  :  15, 
16).  That  this  count  is  from  the  Passover  Sab- 
bath (though  not  actually  so  stated)  is  generally 
admitted;  for  the  connection  and  the  memorial  sig- 
nificance (of  the  fifty  days)  make  the  inference  too 
plain  to  be  avoided. 

The  count  to  Pentecost  ^'from  the  morrow  after 
the  (Passover)  Sabbath,''  and  from  the  putting  of 
^^the  sickle  to  the  corn''  (Deut.  16  :  9)  involves  no 
contradiction  when  we  consider  the  regularity  of  the 
seasons,  due  to  the  peculiar  situation  of  Palestine, 
and  the  fact,  also,  that  the  beginning  of  the  harvest 
may  be  delayed  or  hastened  a  few  days  without  seri- 
ous detriment. 

Notice  that  the  fifty  day  count  to  Pentecost  begins 
with  the  morrow  after  the  Passover  Sabbath  and 
ends  with  the  morrow  after  the  seventh  Sabbath,  so 
that  the  seventh  Sabbath  was  the  forty-ninth  day  of 
the  count,  which  puts  all  the  seven  Sabbaths  in 
direct  line  with  the  Passover  Sabbath.  Now  these 
seven  Sabbaths  between  the  Passover  Sabbath  and 
Pentecost  are  thus  designated  as  Sabbaths;  but  as 


THE   JEWISH    CALENDAR  101 

they  are  not  designated,  even  in  any  implied  sense, 
as  special  Sabbaths,  we  naturally  conclude  that 
they  were  regular  weekly  Sabbaths;  but  the  Pass- 
over Sabbath  was  a  fixed  day  of  the  year ;  hence  the 
weekly  Sabbaths  would  also  be  fixed  days  of  the 
year. 

Beginning  with  the  Passover  Sabbath  (15th  day 
of  the  first  month),  we  have  here  eight  consecutive 
Sabbaths  which  are  fixed  days  of  the  year,  since  the 
Passover  Sabbath  is  a  fixed  day  of  the  year.  If 
these  were  also  the  regular  weekly  Sabbaths,  then — 
counting  backward  from  the  15th — the  8th  and  the 
1st  would  also  be  Sabbaths,  making  ten  consecutive 
weekly  Sabbaths,  from  the  beginning  of  the  year,  as 
fixed  days  of  the  year. 

'^And  it  came  to  pass  in  the  first  month  in  the 

second  year,  on  the  first  day  of  the  month he 

set  the  bread  in  order  upon  it  before  the  Lord,  as  the 
Lord  had  commanded  Moses''  (Ex.  40  :  17,23).  The 
Lord  commanded  Moses  that  the  shew-bread  should 
be  set  in  order  ^' every  Sabbath"  (Lev.  24  :  8). 
*^ Every  Sabbath''  evidently  means  the  weekly  Sab- 
baths, so  then  the  first  day  of  the  first  month  of  the 
second  year  was  a  weekly  Sabbath,  and  hence  the 
8th  was  also  the  Sabbath;  and  the  next  (the  15th) 
was  the  Passover  Sabbath  followed  by  seven  Sab- 
baths. We  have  now  ten  consecutive  weekly  Sab- 
baths, beginning  with  the  first  day  of  the  second 
year.  As  this  is  the  second  year,  and  the  Sab- 
baths are  still  in  direct  line  with  the  eight  fixed  year- 
day  Sabbaths  from  Passover  Sabbath  to  Pentecost, 
and  hence  also  with  the  original  memorial  dates  of 
the  Exodus  and  the  giving  of  the  Law,  we  have 


102  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

every  reason  to  believe  it  was  tlie  fixed  yearly  order, 
and  continued  througliout  the  year. 

Morever,  on  Abib  lOth,  in  all  the  households  of 
Israel,  the  paschal  lamb  was  selected  and  separated 
from  their  flocks  (Ex.  12  :  3).  On  Abib  14th  the  pas- 
chal lamb  was  slain  (verse  6),  and  other  prepara- 
tions made  for  the  Passover.  And  on  the  16th  was 
the  beginning  of  the  harvest  in  which  the  first  sheaf 
of  ripe  grain  was  waved  before  the  Lord  (Lev. 
23  :  15  and  Deut.  16  :  9).  All  this  involved  labor 
which  was  strictly  contrary  to  the  Sabbath  law,  and 
bence  these  three  days  could  never  be  Sabbaths. 
But  as  fixed  days  of  the  year,  they  would  periodi- 
cally fall  on  the  weekly  Sabbath  unless  the  weekly 
Sabbaths  were  also  fixed  days  of  the  year,  which 
furnishes  another  evidence  that  the  weekly  Sabbaths 
were  fixed  days  of  the  year. 

It  would  seem  therefore  that  the  Jewish  Sabbaths 
were  both  fixed  days  of  the  week  and  fixed  days  of 
the  year,  which  would  make  it  necessary  to  adjust 
the  year  to  these  two  fixed  conditions  by  making 
the  year  an  exact  number  of  weeks  (364  days). 

The  Egyptian  month  Ahih  was  the  first  month  of 
the  Jewish  year  (see  Ex.  12  :  2;  13  :  4;  Deut.  16  : 1). 
This  month  began  about  the  vernal  equinox.  Now 
since  the  Jewish  year  (as  already  inferred)  began 
Avith  a  Sabbath,  we  may  reasonably  conclude  that  it 
began  with  the  Sabbath  nearest  the  vernal  equinox. 
The  Jewish  year  of  364  days  would  thus  fall  short 
one  day  in  common  years  and  two  days  in  leap  years, 
making  it  necessary  to  add  a  week  every  five  or  six 
years  according  to  the  following  cycle, — six  years, 
six  years,  five  years,  six  years,  five  years.     This 


THE    JEWISH    CALENDAR  103 

would  only  involve  the  simple  expedient  of  adding 
a  week  whenever  the  year  fell  more  than  three  days 
(or  half  a  week)  short  of  the  vernal  equinox,  in 
order  to  begin  with  the  nearest  Sabbath  before  or 
after.  This  would  emphasize  the  Sabbath  as  the 
determining  element  of  the  Jewish  calendar,  and 
would  harmonize  with  the  prominence  of  the  Sab- 
bath in  the  Jewish  ritual. 

The  flood  lasted  from  the  17th  day  of  the  second 
month  (Gen.  7  :  11)  to  the  17th  day  of  the  seventh 
month  (Gen.  8  :  4),  or  one  hundred  and  fifty  days 
(Gen.  7  :  24).  Thus  we  have  five  months  equal  150 
days,  or  one  month  equal  30  days.  In  Rev.  10  :  2,3, 
also  12  :  6  and  13  :  5,  we  have  forty-two  months 
equal  1,260  days,  or  one  month  equal  30  days.  Thus 
we  have  the  thirty  day  month  in  the  first  and  the 
last  books  of  the  Bible,  and  hence  all  the  way 
through.  This  practically  determines  the  measure 
of  the  month  in  the  Jewish  calendar. 

The  lunar  theory  is  evidently  based  on  the  **new 
moon'^  offerings  in  1  Cliron.  23  :  31;  2  Chron.  2:4; 
8  :13;31  :3;Neh.lO  :33;Ezek.45  :17;Hos.  2  :11; 
Col.  2  :  16.  But  the  word  here  translated  '^moon" 
is  the  same  word  that  is  elsewhere  translated 
*' month.''  Furthermore,  the  *^new  moon"  offer- 
ings point  directly  back  to  their  origin  in  the  com- 
mand in  Num.  28  :  11, — ^^And  in  the  beginning  of 
your  months  ye  shall  offer  a  burnt  offering  unto 
the  Lord."  God  would  not  likely  give  a  command 
that  would  have  a  tendency  to  lead  to  moon-wor- 
ship. Hence  it  is  purely  assumption  that  these  of- 
ferings were  on  the  new  moons. 


104  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Most  nations  had  a  year  of  twelve  months  of 
thirty  days  each,  or  360  days ;  but  the  solar  year  is 
365  days  and  a  fraction  of  a  day.  Some  nations 
made  up  the  shortage  by  adding  a  month  every  six 
years.  In  the  ancient  Egyptian  calendar,  to  which 
the  Jewish  calendar  was  most  nearly  related,  '^The 
month  consisted  of  thirty  days  invariably;  and  in 
order  to  complete  the  year,  ^ve  days  w^ere  added  at 
the  end,  called  supplementary  days"  {Encyclopedia 
Brittannica,  Vol.  IV,  page  665).  The  Jewish  calen- 
dar of  364  days,  or  52  even  weeks  would  thus  be 
very  similar  to  the  Egyptian  calendar  (from  w^hich 
it  was  derived),  but  would  contain  four  instead  of 
^ve  supplementary  days  in  ordinary  years,  and 
would  require  an  intercalary  week  whenever  the 
deficiency  amounted  to  a  week. 

It  is  evidently  impossible  to  construct  a  perfect 
calendar  from  the  solar  year  of  365  days  and  a  frac- 
tion of  a  day  that  would  require  no  periodic  cor- 
rection ;  and  hence  all  calendars  are  subject  to  peri- 
odic correction. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  above  Jewish  calendar  is 
the  only  possible  calendar  that  can  be  constructed 
under  the  two  conditions, — that  the  Jewish  Sabbaths 
were  on  a  fixed  day  of  the  week  and  on  fixed  days 
of  the  year.  Therefore,  if  these  tw^o  conditions  are 
both  true,  the  calendar  must  be  true. 

It  wdll  be  seen,  also,  that  this  calendar  is  made  up 
entirely  of  weeks.  Now  the  week  is  the  only  directly 
God  appointed  division  of  time,  and  it  would  seem 
only  fitting  that  God  w^ould  construct  the  Bible  cal- 
endar upon  the  w^eek  as  a  foundation. 
It  has  been  claimed  that  God  would  not  write  a 


THE    JEWISH    CALENDAR  105 

year  of  365  days  and  a  fraction  of  a  day  in  the 
book  of  nature  and  a  different  year  in  the  Bible. 
But  it  is  impossible  to  write  the  fraction  of  a  day 
into  any  calendar  outside  of  the  book  of  nature, 
and  hence  the  Bible  calendar  cannot  be  exactly  true 
to  nature;  and  if  not  exactly  true,  then  the  whole 
force  of  the  argument  is  destroyed.  God  very  defi- 
nitely wrote  the  weekly  cycle  into  the  Bible,  and 
made  it  the  first  and  most  prominent  division  of  the 
Bible  calendar.  Three  hundred  and  sixty-five  days 
is  the  nearest  approach  to  nature's  year,  but  it  is 
not  a  multiple  of  the  weekly  cycle;  therefore  the 
Bible  year  cannot  coincide  with  both. 

There  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  Jewish  year 
was  divided  into  two  equal  parts.  In  Levidicus  23, 
only  the  first  and  seventh  months  are  named,  thus 
giving  these  months  each  the  sense  of  a  new  begin- 
ning of  months,  dividing  the  year  into  two  distinct 
parts. 

Because  of  the  relation  of  seed  time  and  harvest, 
the  seventh  and  fiftieth  year  rests  or  Sabbaths  to 
the  land — and  hence  the  counting  of  years  with 
reference  thereto — began  with  the  seventh  month 
(Lev.  25  :  2-9).  Every  fiftieth  year  was  also  a  year 
of  jubilee,  in  which  all  debts  were  cancelled,  every 
man  returned  unto  his  possession,  and  slaves  were 
set  at  liberty.  Hence  all  civil  contracts,  thus  in- 
volved, were  made  with  reference  to  the  year  of 
jubilee  (verses  10-16)  which  bgan  with  the  seventh 
month.  Therefore  the  Jewish  year  in  a  civil  sense 
began  with  the  seventh  month,  or  autumnal  equinox, 
while  in  a  religious  sense  it  began  with  the  vernal 
equinox. 


106  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Adding  two  days  at  the  end  of  each  half  of  the 
year  would  consume  the  four  supplementary  days 
belonging  to  the  year,  and  each  half  would  be 
G  X  30  +  2  =  182  days,  or  26  even  weeks,  and  thus 
the  year  would  be  divided  into  two  exactly  equal 
parts,  each  whole  and  complete  in  itself  as  a  dis- 
tinct division  of  time.  We  found  that  the  1st,  8th, 
15th,  22nd,  etc.,  days  of  the  first  month  were  weekly 
Sabbaths.  Hence  the  same  days  of  the  seventh 
month  would  be  weekly  Sabbaths. 

In  Lev.  23  :  23-36  we  find  that  the  1st,  10th,  15th, 
and  22nd  days  of  the  seventh  month  were  Sabbaths. 
If  the  1st,  15th  and  22nd  were  weekly  Sabbaths, 
then  the  8th  would  be  also.  The  10th  was  the  day  of 
Atonement  in  which  the  Israelites  were  to  afflict 
their  souls  (verse  27),  and  was  thus  contrary  to  the 
spirit  of  the  weekly  Sabbath,  which  would  account 
for  it  not  being  a  weekly  Sabbath. 

If  the  15th  and  22nd  were  not  weekly  Sabbaths, 
then  the  weekly  Sabbath  was  between  them;  but 
verses  35  and  36  imply  that  the  15tli  and  22nd  were 
the  only  Sabbaths  involved  in  the  Feast  of  Taber- 
nacles. This  fact,  together  Avith  the  fact  that  the 
1st,  15th,  and  22nd  were  in  the  same  seven-day 
cycle,  and  were  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the 
weekly  Sabbaths,  is  strong  presumptive  evidence 
that  they  were  weekly  Sabbaths;  which,  if  true, 
proves  the  correctness  of  the  above  division  of  the 
two  halves  of  the  year. 

The  intercalary  week  added  every  five  or  six 
vears  could  be  added  to  the  end  of  either  half  of  the 
year,  without  affecting  the  special  Sabbaths  of  the 
year. 


THE   JEWISH   CALENDAK  107 

The  annual  special  Sabbaths  were  *^Each  on  its 
own  day;  besides  the  Sabbaths  of  Jehovah"  (Lev, 
23  :  37,38,  K.  V.). 

We  here  give  Adventists  advantage  of  the  doubt, 
and  assume  that  the  word  ^'each''  refers  to  the  an- 
nual Sabbaths  instead  of  to  the  offerings  immediate- 
ly preceding  it.  Adventists  argue  that  the  word 
** besides"  proves  that  the  annual  Sabbaths  were  in 
no  case  weekly  Sabbaths.  This  is  true,  so  far  as  the 
annual  sense  is  ^'besides"  the  weekly  sense.  Ad- 
ventists admit  that  the  annual  Sabbaths  must  occa- 
sionally fall  on  the  weekly  Sabbath,  then  they  must 
interpret  the  word  ^^ besides"  so  that  it  will  not  con- 
tradict itself  when  this  is  the  case.  And  thus  it  can 
only  mean  that  the  annual  Sabbaths  were  separate 
and  distinct  in  God's  plan  from  the  weekly  Sab- 
baths, even  though  both,  in  certain  cases  or  at  cer- 
tain times,  fell  on  the  same  day;  in  which  case,  that 
Sabbath  became  ^^an  high  day"  (John  19  :  31), 
above  other  weekly  Sabbaths,  because  of  the  com- 
bined annual  and  weekly  sense. 

The  theory  of  the  *^two  days  as  one  Sabbath  at 
Pentecost"  is  based:  firsts  on  the  assumption  that 
the  Bible  year  was  365  days;  and  second,  on  the 
proofs  (which  we  have  already  given)  that  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbaths  were  fixed  days  of  the  year. 

The  two  days  Sabbath  involves  an  eight  day  week, 
and  thus  supplies  the  additional  day  needed  to  fill 
out  the  365  days  of  the  common  year.  But  leap 
years  would  require  two  eight  day  weeks  or  one  nine 
day  week;  but  as  no  possible  excuse  can  be  found 
for  two  eight  day  weeks,  or  one  nine  day  week,  and 
as  the  Sabbaths  must  remain  fixed  days  of  the  year, 


108  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

it  becomes  necessary  to  add  one  week  every  twenty- 
eight  years, — thus  acknowledging  the  principle  of 
correcting  the  calendar  by  the  addition  of  a  week. 
Now,  if  it  is  admissible  to  add  a  week  in  every 
twenty-eight  years,  it  is  just  as  admissible  to  add  it 
every  &ve  or  six  years,  for  the  principle  is  the  same. 

^^Eemember  the  Sabbath  day/'  ^'The  seventh  day 
is  the  Sabbath.''  The  two  days  Sabbath  could  not 
be  called  ^^the  seventh  day."  The  day  is  therefore 
the  measure  of  the  Sabbath  institution  according  to 
the  Sabbath  law.  If  the  word  day  in  the  Sabbath 
law  may,  in  any  possible  case,  mean  more  than  twen- 
ty-four hours,  then  the  word  day  in  the  Sabbath  law 
has  no  definite  time  value;  but  if  the  word  day  in 
the  Sabbath  law  has  no  definite  time  value,  then  the 
Sabbath  is  not  a  definite  institution  in  that  it  has  no 
definite  measure.  This  is  simply  an  axiom  or  self- 
evident  truth. 

^ '  Six  days  shalt  thou  labor but  the  seventh 

day  is  the  Sabbath."  Then  the  week  of  the  Sabbath 
law  is  a  week  of  seven  days,  and  therefore  a  week 
of  eight  days  would  be  contrary  to  the  Sabbath  law. 
Would  God,  who  instituted  the  weekly  cycle,  contra- 
dict his  own  original  purpose  in  it  by  changing  it 
every  year! 

The  theory  is  very  insistent  on  the  literal  render- 
ing of  the  Sabbath  law  in  regard  to  six  work  days 
following  the  Sabbath,  for  it  insists  that  according 
to  the  Sabbath  law  six  work  days  must  follow  the 
Pentecost  Sabbath;  thus  vvhile  insisting  on  the  lit- 
eral rendering  at  one  point,  it  totally  ignores  the 
literal  rendering  at  two  very  vital  points. 

It  is  argued  that  there  cannot  be  two  rests  with  no 
work  between,  and  sabbath  means  rest,  and  there- 


THE    JEWISH    CALENDAR  109 

fore  there  cannot  be  two  Sabbaths  with  no  work  day 
between;  and  as  the  Pentecost  Sabbath  was  the  mor- 
row after  the  seventh  Sabbath,  these  two  Sabbaths 
must  be  one  Sabbath  two  days  long. 

Pentecost  is  nowhere  in  the  Bible  called  a  Sab- 
bath. Its  Sabbath  sense  is  only  in  the  command, 
*^Ye  shall  do  no  servile  work  therein.'^  It  is  thus 
a  Sabbath  only  in  the  sense  that  rest  is  the  antithe- 
sis of  labor.  Calling  it  a  Sabbath  is  therefore  a 
recognition  of  this  sense  of  the  word;  and,  in  this 
sense  of  the  word,  it  is  Avholly  independent  of  the 
preceding  Sabbath. 

Pentecost  has  its  appointment  in  a  separate  and 
distinct  command,  which  fact  alone  necessarily 
makes  it  separate  and  distinct  from  any  other  day. 

The  two  Sabbaths  are  each  based  on  a  separate 
and  distinct  comm^and,  and  each  commemorates  a 
separate  and  distinct  event.  They  are  thus  separate 
and  distinct  in  every  essential  particular,  and  there- 
fore there  is  no  warrant  for  regarding  them  to- 
gether as  one  Sabbath. 

Moreover,  we  find  two  Sabbaths  together  on  the 
6th  and  7th  days  (or  7th  and  8th,  counting  inclu- 
sively) after  the  Passover  Sabbath  (Lev.  23  :  6-8), 
— counting  the  Passover  Sabbath  as  always  on  a 
weekly  Sabbath  (which  fact  is  also  an  essential  part 
of  the  theory  in  question).  Here,  however,  the  spe- 
cial Sabbath  is  before  the  v/eekly  Sabbath,  and  hence 
the  cessation  from  work  began  one  day  before  the 
weekly  Sabbath,  then,  according  to  the  cessation 
rest  sense  argument,  the  weekly  Sabbath  began  one 
day  before  its  regular  time.  If  we  recognize  the 
double  day  sense  of  the  Sabbath  in  one  place,  we 


110  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

must  recognize  it  also  in  the  other ;  but  here  we  can 
not  recognize  it, — for  we  would  have  two  weekly 
Sabbaths  with  only  five  work  days  between,  contrary 
to  the  Sabbath  law, — ^then  neither  can  it  be  recog- 
nized in  the  other  place. 

Again,  it  is  argued  that  the  commandment  says, 
*^Six  days  shalt  thou  labor,''  and  therefore  six  work 
days  must  follow  the  Pentecost  Sabbath.  To  recog- 
nize any  exceptions  to  this  commandment  is  to 
destroy  the  argument,  for  Pentecost  is  just  as  liable 
to  be  an  exception  as  any  other  case.  The  less  than 
six  days  between  the  Passover  Sabbath  and  the  Sab- 
bath following,  and  between  the  Atonement  Sabbath 
and  the  Sabbaths  on  either  side,  are  exceptions 
which  cannot  be  disputed.  The  necessary  conclu- 
sion is  that  the  command,  ^^Six  days  shalt  thou 
labor, ' '  must  be  interpreted  to  mean,  *  ^  Six  days  may 
work  be  done"  (Ex.  31  :  15,  A.  V.) ;  and  this  is  the 
universally  applied  sense. 

Another  argument  consists  in  an  attempt  to  draw 
a  parallel  between  the  two  Sabbath  days  at  Pente- 
cost and  the  two  Sabbath  years  at  the  end  of  each 
fifty  year  cycle. 

Pentecost  was  not  an  every  fiftieth  day  in  regular 
rotation,  as  the  year  of  Jubilee  was  an  every  fiftieth 
year.  Thus  the  parallel  fails  in  a  very  important 
sense  at  the  start.  Now  if  the  parallel  is  not  com- 
plete, no  conclusive  argument  can  be  drav/n  from  it ; 
for  then  it  is  impossible  to  judge  with  certainty 
wherein  the  parallel  does  or  does  not  hold. 

The  fact  that  the  fifty  year  count  was  a  repeating 
time  measure,  or  cycle,  made  it  necessary  that  each 
count  begin  with  the  year  following  the  preceding 


THE   JEWISH   CALENDAR  111 

count ;  and  the  weeks  of  years  necessarily  conformed 
to  the  fifty  year  cycle  because  of  their  fixed  relation 
to  it.  This  time  measuring  repetition  element,  in 
the  fifty  year  cycle,  is  of  itself  a  sufficient  reason 
why  each  fifty  year  count  began  with  the  year  after 
the  two  Sabbath  years  at  the  end  of  the  preceding 
count. 

Now  there  can  be  no  parallel  argument  here  in 
regard  to  the  fifty  day  count  to  Pentecost  unless  a 
parallel  reason  is  involved.  But  the  fifty  day  count 
to  Pentecost  was  not  a  repeating  time  measure,  or 
cycle.  It  only  occurred  once  in  each  year,  and  at  a 
fixed  place  in  the  year,  which  it  could  not  if  it  were 
a  self -repeating  cycle,  and  hence  there  was  no  mo- 
tive or  reason  for  beginning  a  new  count  at  the  end 
of  it. 

Thus  the  parallel  breaks  down  at  the  exact  point 
where  the  whole  argument  depends.  In  the  first 
case,  the  continuous  time  measuring  element  was  in 
the  fifty  year  cycle,  not  in  the  seven  year  cycle.  In 
the  second  case,  the  continuous  time  measuring  ele- 
ment was  in  the  weekly  cycle,  and  not  in  the  fifty 
day  count  to  Pentecost. 

The  Jubilee  year,  in  its  proclamation  of  ^  liberty 
throughout  the  land"  (Lev.  25  :  10),  was  a  semi- 
centenary  memorial  of  the  deliverance  from  Egyp- 
tian bondage.  Pentecost  was  a  yearly  memorial  of 
the  giving  of  the  Law.  Thus  there  is  no  parallel 
here  in  a  memorial  sense.  All  of  this  shows  that 
the  two  institutions  had  no  intended  parallel  rela- 
tion to  each  other. 

We  now  come  to  the  main  argument.  That  the  giv-i 
ing  of  the  Law  on  Sinai  occupied  the  whole  ot  Sun- 


112  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

day  (following  the  Sabbath)  and  in  that  law  was 
the  command,  **six  days  shalt  thou  labor ;^'  and  as 
the  people  did  not  work  on  that  Sunday,  the  law 
necessarily  went  into  effect  the  next  day,  which 
would  make  the  next  Sabbath  fall  on  the  next  Sun- 
day, thus  advancing  the  weekly  cycle  one  day — and 
likewise  every  year — in  the  memorial  of  the  giving 
of  the  Law  at  Pentecost. 

The  Sabbath  law  was  based  on  the  creation  model. 
It  also  definitely  fixed  the  day  as  the  measure  of  the 
Sabbath  institution.  Hence  the  two  days  as  one 
Sabbath,  involving  an  eight  day  week,  contradicts 
the  Sabbath  law  at  two  vital  points.  It  is  a  poor 
argument  that  totally  ignors  two  vital  points  in 
order  to  sustain  a  wholly  unnecessary  application  of 
another  point. 

The  argument  also  denies  the  purely  moral  char- 
acter of  the  Sabbath  law  by  giving  it  (just  as  Ad- 
ventists  do)  a  partially  economic  sense,  as  if,  in 
itself,  it  in  any  sense  fixed  the  day  of  the  Sabbath. 
In  this  respect  the  theory  is  no  better  than  the 
Adventists'  theory. 

The  day  of  the  Sabbath  was  fixed  by  the  manna 
several  weeks  before  the  giving  of  the  Law,  and  the 
Israelites  would  necessarily  understand  the  Sab- 
bath law  by  the  manna  interpretation  of  it.  And 
there  is  not  the  slightest  warrant  for  supposing  that 
the  day  of  withholding  the  manna  was  changed  after 
the  giving  of  the  Law.  The  day  on  which  the  Law 
was  given  could  be  one  of  the  six  week  days  in  the 
same  sense  that  certain  annual  sabbaths  were. 

The  sole  aim  of  the  theory  seems  to  be  to  make 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  fall  on  different  days  of  the 


THE    JEWISH    CALEITDAR  113 

week  in  successive  years,  tliinking  tlius  to  destroy 
the  Adventists  fixed  seventh  day  of  the  week  theory. 

If  the  Jewish  calendar  w^ere  so  very  unique,  is  it 
not  very  remarkable  that  there  is  not  the  slightest 
trace  of  it  anywhere  in  the  Jewish  records!  The 
more  unique  a  thing  is  the  more  likely  it  is  to  leave 
some  trace  of  itself. 

The  Christian  Sabbath  has  always  been  a  fixed 
day  of  the  week.  Now  if,  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era,  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  not  a  fixed 
day  of  the  week,  then  the  two  Sabbaths  would 
periodically  (continuing  for  a  year)  come  on  the 
same  day.  The  Jewish  Christians  kept  both  Sab- 
baths. But  they  could  not  w^orship  as  Jews  and  as 
Christians  at  the  same  time  and  place.  As  Jews, 
they  must  go  to  the  synagogue  and  go  through  the 
ritual  of  the  Jewish  worship,  which  probably  oc- 
cupied almost  all  of  the  available  part  of  the  day. 
As  Christians,  they  must  meet  elsewhere  for  wor- 
ship, for  as  a  rule  they  were  forbidden  the  syna- 
gogue to  worship  in.  Often  they  had  to  meet  in 
secret.  This  would  necessarily  involve  very  serious 
confusion,  since  this  condition  would  continue  each 
time  for  a  year;  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint 
of  any  such  confusion,  either  in  the  Bible,  or  in  the 
early  Christian  writings,  which  is  very  remarkable 
if  such  confusion  existed. 

Again,  according  to  the  theory  in  question,  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  still  remained  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week  in  the  Jewish  calendar.  Thus,  in  the  Jew- 
ish calendar,  the  weekly  cycle  (as  a  whole)  was  ad- 
vanced (by  the  measure  of  a  day)  once  every  year. 
This  would  make  the  Jewish  calendar  very  distinct 


114  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

and  peculiar  from  all  other  calendars.  During  the 
New  Testament  times  the  Jews  were  subject  to  the 
Roman  calendar  in  all  civil  matters.  Now  would 
this  involve  no  confusion,  considering  that  six- 
sevenths  of  the  time  the  count  of  the  days  of  the 
week  would  be  entirely  different  in  the  two  calen- 
dars? And  is  it  possible  that  such  confusion  existed 
and  no  trace  of  it  found  in  all  the  records  of  history! 
If  the  theory  in  question  is  untrue,  then,  like  all 
other  errors  it  can  only  do  harm  by  obstructing  the 
truth.  If  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  the  true  Sabbath, 
it  does  not  rest  on  any  false  foundation,  and  can 
receive  no  true  support  from  any  false  theory. 

If  the  proofs  given  that  the  Jewish  weekly  Sab- 
baths were  fixed  days  of  the  year  are  conclusive,  as 
we  think  can  scarcely  be  questioned,  and  if  the  with- 
holding of  the  manna  on  every  seventh  day  for 
forty  years  is  proof  conclusive  that  the  Jewish  week- 
ly Sabbath  was  a  fixed  day  of  the  week,  then  we 
have  two  positive  conditions  which  together  posi- 
tively determine  the  Jewish  year  to  be  three  hund- 
red and  sixty-four  days,  or  fifty-two  even  weeks, 
with  the  addition  of  a  week  whenever  the  shortage 
amounted  to  a  week. 

At  the  beginning  of  a  new  calendar  the  time  divi- 
sions must  begin  together,  and  since  in  this  case  the 
weekly  cycle  is  an  exact  measure  of  the  year,  the 
years  and  weeks  will  start  even  at  the  beginning  of 
each  year. 

The  Jewish  calendar,  as  distinct  from  others,  be- 
gan with  the  month  Abib  (Ex.  12  :'  2;  13  :  4;  Deut. 
16  :  1)  of  the  year  of  the  Exodus.    And  since  in 


THE   JEWISH   CALENDAR  115 

this  new  calendar  the  time  divisions  (years,  months, 
weeks)  must  start  together,  and  the  Jewish  Sab- 
baths are  on  the  1st,  8th,  15th,  etc.,  of  each  year,  it 
follows  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  on  the  first, 
not  the  seventh,  day  of  the  week  in  the  Jewish 
calendar.  But  yet  it  was  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week  counting  from  the  beginning  of  the  manna, 
which  was  given  six  days  and  withheld  the  seventh, 
after  the  pattern  of  the  creation  model,  for  forty 
years.  And  thus  it  was,  that  even  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath was  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  a  time  sense 
and  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  in  a  model  sense, 
just  as  the  primitive  Sabbath  was,  and  as  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath  is  to-day.  But,  evidently,  the  model 
sense  prevailed  over  the  time  sense,  by  reason  of 
the  forty  years  manna,  till  the  time  sense  was  en- 
tirely lost  sight  of;  and  thus  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
has  been  handed  down  to  the  present  time  as  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week,  while  in  reality  it  was  the 
first  day  of  the  week  in  the  Jewish  calendar. 

In  Ex.  12  :  2,  God  definitely  determined  the  be- 
ginning of  the  Jewish  calendar.  This  new  begin- 
nig  in  itself,  aside  from  any  other  consideration, 
made  the  Jewish  calendar  distinct  from  the  Egyp- 
tian calendar,  and  hence  a  new  calendar;  and  as  a 
new  calendar,  it  involved  a  new  beginning  of  weeks, 
and  God,  by  the  manna,  made  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
the  first  day  of  the  week  of  this  new  calendar. 
There  are  two  definite  proofs  in  this  fact: 
First,  That  God  changed  the  day  of  the  Sabbath 
by  the  manna.  For  if  God  had  timed  the  Exodus 
one  year  later  (which  He  could  as  easily  have  done), 
then  Sunday  instead  of  Saturday  (the  rotary  effect 


116  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

of  the  Egyptian  365  day  year)  would  have  been  the 
beginning  of  the  Jewish  calendar,  and  Saturday 
would  have  been  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  and 
thus  its  relation  to  the  week  would  not  have  been 
changed.  Now  if  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  could  not 
be  changed,  and  must  be  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week,  then  God  would  certainly  have  timed  the  Ex- 
odus so  that  it  would  have  been  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week  in  the  Jewish  calendar.  But  God  had  a 
definite  purpose  in  the  timing,  since  He  has  a  pur- 
pose in  all  that  He  does. 

Second,  That  the  original  Sabbath  was  the  first 
day  of  the  week.  For  no  reason  can  be  given  w^hy 
it  was  made  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  the  Jewish 
calendar  except  as  the  reaffirmation  of  its  typical 
meaning,  as  the  giving  of  the  manna  was  the  re- 
affirmation of  its  memorial  meaning.  A  modula- 
tion in  music  is  a  fitting  illustration  of  how  chang- 
ing the  day  of  the  Sabbath  involved  changing  with 
it  the  entire  calendar  as  its  proper  accompaniment, 
and  also  a  fitting  illustration  of  the  tempory  char- 
acter of  the  change. 

The  Israelites  were  accustomed  to  regard  Satur- 
day as  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  in  the  Egyp- 
tian calendar,  and  it  was  only  natural  that  they 
would  continue  to  so  regard  it,  and  this  fact,  togeth- 
er with  the  forty  years  manna,  fully  accounts  for  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  being  handed  down  as  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  and  so  regarded  by  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers.  But  this  does  not  alter  the  fact  that 
it  was  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  the  original  Jew- 
ish calendar,  and  that  God  had  a  definite  purpose  in 
the  fact. 


THE   JEWISH    CALENDAR  117 

We  must  also  keep  in  mind  that  while  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  was  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  the  Jewish 
calendar,  it  was  still  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  in 
the  original  weekly  cycle,  w^hich,  as  we  believe, 
reaches  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  time,  and 
that  the  change  in  the  calendar,  as  the  proper  accom- 
paniment to  the  change  in  the  day  of  the  Sabbath, 
was  but  a  temporary  modulation  in  God's  original 
plan,  and  can  only  mean  that  the  Sabbath  was  origi- 
nally on  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

The  only  possible  position  that  Adventists  can 
here  take  is  either  to  deny  that  Ex.  12  :  2  (though 
it  made  the  Jewish  calendar  separate  and  distinct 
from  all  others)  was  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish 
calendar.  Or  else  that,  while  it  was  the  beginning 
of  a  new  calendar,  it  did  not  involve  a  new  begin- 
ning of  weeks;  which  is  to  deny  the  self-evident 
principle,  that  at  the  beginning  of  a  new  calendar  all 
time  divisions  necessarily  begin  together. 


CHAPTER  VL 

SABBATH  TESTIMONY  OP  THE  ANCIENT  CALENDARS 

AND  LANGUAGES. 

It  is  evident  that  the  weekly  Sabbath  given  to 
man  at  the  beginning  of  time  would  necessitate  the 
weekly  cycle,  and  that  so  long  as  the  weekly  Sabbath 
continued  in  unbroken  succession  the  original  week- 
ly cycle  was  not  lost. 

In  the  fact  that  the  dividing  of  all  time  into  six 
day  periods  by  an  every  seventh  day  of  rest,  is  the 
most  fitting  memorial  possible  of  the  six  days  of 
Creation,  and  the  only  sufficient  explanation  of  the 
Sabbath's  memorial  sense,  and  in  the  assumption 
that  God  would  use  only  the  most  fitting  memorial, 
we  have  the  proof  that  the  Sabbath  and  the  weekly 
cycle  were  ordained  by  God  at  the  beginning  of 
time  and  necessarily  preserved  in  the  carrying  out 
of  His  memorial  scheme. 

It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  the  weekly  cycle 
was  never  changed  in  a  local  sense,  for  man  has 
*^ sought  out  many  inventions"  (Eccl.  7  :  29).    It  is 


i^NCIENT   CALEN-DAES  AND   LANGUAGES  119 

claimed  that  the  ancient  Persians,  Homans,  and  peo- 
ple of  old  Calabar  had  an  eight  day  week  and  that 
the  Egyptians  at  one  time  had  a  ten  day  week.  Even 
at  a  quite  recent  date  France  adopted  a  week  of  ten 
days. 

The  fact  that  the  seven  day  week  can  be  traced 
back  through  the  many  lines  of  historical  record  to 
time  immemorial  and  still  remains  to  the  present 
day,  while  all  attempts  to  change  it  have  failed,  only 
strengthens  the  Bible  account  of  its  origin  and  con- 
firms the  truth  of  God's  great  time  memorial 
scheme. 

It  is  evident  that  God's  purpose  in  the  Sabbath 
was  not  only  that  it  should  be  a  day  of  rest  and  a 
memorial  of  Creation,  but  also  that  it  should  be  a 
day  of  worship.  Its  memorial  and  rest  day  sense 
was  in  its  seventh  day  of  the  week  count;  and  its 
worship  sense,  as  a  sacrifice  or  offering  of  time,  was 
in  its  first  day  of  the  week  count,  for  God  claims  first 
things  as  His  due,  and  the  first  day  of  the  week 
represents  the  first  of  time. 

Worship  at  first  was  through  sacrifices  as  types 
of  the  great  promised  sacrifice  in  Christ.  Abel 
clearly  recognized  the  principle  that  first  things 
rightly  belonged  to  God,  in  offering  the  firstlings  of 
his  flock  (Gen.  4:4).  It  is  not  said  that  Cain 
brought  of  the  firstfruit  of  the  ground,  but  only  that 
he  ^'brought  of  the  fruit  of  the  ground  an  offering 
unto  the  Lord"  (verse  3).  It  is  fair  to  suppose  that 
he  did  not  bring  of  the  firstfruit,  which  proved  that 
his  offering  was  not  in  the  right  spirit,  and  hence 
rejected. 

It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  the  typical  meaning 


120  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

of  the  Sabbath  was  clearly  recognized  and  under- 
stood from  the  beginning  of  time,  but  rather  that  it 
gradually  dawned  on  man's  perception  as  the  great 
plan  of  Eedemption  gradually  unfolded  itself.  But 
whatever  man's  perception,  it  is  certain  that  the  full 
meaning  of  the  Sabbath  was  in  God's  mind  from  the 
beginning,  just  as  was  also  the  full  plan  of  Redemp- 
tion ;  and  it  is  as  certain,  also,  that  man  in  the  early 
ages  understood  the  full  meaning  of  the  Sabbath  no 
better  than  he  understood  the  full  plan  of  Redemp- 
tion. 

Man  lost  the  true  spiritual  sense  of  the  Sabbath 
just  in  proportion  as  he  drifted  away  from  the  true 
spiritual  worship  of  God;  and  that  man  did  thus 
drift  away,  with  but  a  very  few  notable  exceptions, 
the  Bible  itself  testifies.  Thus  the  typical  sense  of 
the  Sabbath,  which  appealed  only  to  the  spiritual 
perception,  was  at  best  only  dimly  recognized  and 
understood  by  the  ancient  peoples,  and  hence  was 
very  easily  lost  sight  of.  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  memorial  and  rest  day  sense  of  the  Sabbath 
appealed  directly  to  man's  material  perception,  and 
there  was  no  danger  of  its  being  lost  sight  of. 

All  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  were  descendants 
of  Noah  and  must  have  had  the  same  Bible  tradition 
of  the  Creation,  which  could  only  have  come  through 
Noah.  One  evidence  of  this  is  the  Chaldean  account 
of  Creation,  the  date  of  which  has  been  placed  by 
the  most  eminent  authorities  at  about  2000  B.  0. 
Hence  the  model  sense  of  the  week  was  not  wanting. 

The  rest  day  sense  of  the  Sabbath,  as  rest  from 
the  six  days  before,  and  thus  naturally  belonging  to 
the  six  days  from  which  it  is  the  resting,  was  too 


ANCIENT    CAI.ENDAES   AND   LANGUAGES  121 

plain  not  to  be  recognized,  hence  the  seventh  day  of 
tbe  week  sense  of  the  Sabbath  was  not  wanting.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  first  day  of  the  week  worship 
sense  of  the  Sabbath,  together  with  its  first  day  of 
time  memorial  sense,  also  appealed  directly  to  man's 
material  perception. 

Morover,  it  is  practically  certain  that  Adam, 
during  the  nine  hundred  and  thirty  years  of  his  life, 
reaching  down  to  the  ninth  generation,  preserved 
the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath;  and  the  ever  in- 
creasing force  of  habit  during  all  these  years  would 
make  the  chances  more  than  a  hundred  to  one 
against  any  change.  And  the  acquired  precedence 
before  the  flood  would  make  the  same  all  the  more 
true  in  the  case  of  Noah,  who  lived  to  the  tenth  gen- 
eration after  the  flood.  Thus  the  original  day  of  the 
Sabbath  would  come  to  be  specially  recognized  as 
the  day  appointed  by  the  Great  Creator  for  His 
Worship.  The  Sun  or  God  of  the  sun,  in  heathen 
sun-worship,  always  represented  the  creative  pow- 
er or  principle  in  nature ;  and  hence  the  day  of  sun- 
worship  would  naturally  be  on  the  day  handed  down 
as  the  day  appointed  by  the  Creator. 

We  have  now  the  probable  conditions  that  existed 
at  the  time  the  earliest  calendars  were  formed.  And 
we  have  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  sense  of  the 
Sabbath  and  the  first  day  of  the  week  sense,  both 
claiming  recognition  in  the  formation  of  these  cal- 
endars. Evidently,  no  time  calendar  can,  in  a  time 
sense,  be  based  on  both,  and  naturally,  therefore,  we 
find  some  ancient  calendars  based  on  one  and  some 
on  the  other. 

It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  in  those  ancient  calen- 


122  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

dars  in  which  worship  was  the  paramount  sense  of 
the  specially  designated  day  (or  Sabbath)  it  was 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  where  rest  was  the 
paramount  sense,  it  was  the  last  day  of  the  week. 

It  is  evident  that  if  separated,  the  worship  sense 
of  the  Sabbath  would  attach  to  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  and  the  rest  sense  to  the  last  day  of  the  week ; 
and  it  is  evident,  also,  that  both  can  only  be  recog- 
nized in  a  time  calendar  sense  separately,  as  the 
first  and  last  days  of  the  week.  Hence  the  separa- 
tion was  the  natural  result  of  the  breaking  away 
from  the  original  weekly  cycle  in  the  formation  of 
the  ancient  calendars. 

After  the  day  and  the  week,  the  month  was  un- 
doubtedly the  earliest  division  of  time.  The  fact 
that  the  thirty  day  month,  so  common  in  the  ancient 
calendars,  is  the  nearest  approach  to  the  moon's 
lunation  clearly  indicates  its  origin.  But  the  moon's 
lunations  are  twenty-nine  and  one-half  days,  very 
nearly,  so  that  the  lunar  months,  to  keep  time  with 
the  moon,  must  be  alternately  twenty-nine  and 
thirty  days. 

Four  seven  day  weeks  equal  twenty-eight  days; 
therefore,  in  the  ancient  calendars  which  divided 
each  month  into  four  weeks,  the  twenty-nine  day^ 
month  consisted  of  three  seven  day  weeks  and  one 
eight  day  week;  and  the  thirty  day  month  consisted 
of  three  seven  day  weeks  and  one  nine  day  week,  or 
two  seven  day  weeks  and  two  eight  day  weeks 
(either  consecutively  or  alternately),  which  natur- 
ally gave  rise  to  a  number  of  different  calendars. 

Now  if  the  last  day  of  each  week  was  the  Sabbath, 
then  the  Sabbaths  were  occasionally  eight  or  nine 


ANCIENT   CALENDARS  AND   LANGUAGES  123 

days  apart;  therefore  those  Sabbaths  could  not  be 
in  unbroken  line  with  God's  original  every  seventh 
day  Sabbath.  But  the  whole  argument  of  Advent- 
ists  and  Seventh-day  Baptists,  relative  to  the  anci- 
ent calendars,  is  based  on  these  irregular  Sabbaths, 
whereby  their  own  argument  destroys  their  essen- 
tial doctrine  that  the  Sabbath  has  come  down  in 
unbroken  succession  from  God's  rest  day. 

Since  the  specially  marked  day  (or  Sabbath) 
was  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  some  of  the  ancient 
calendars,  and  the  last  day  of  the  week  in  others, 
it  follows  that  these  irregularly  timed  Sabbaths  fur- 
nish just  as  much  argument  on  one  side  of  the  Sab- 
bath day  question  as  on  the  other,  and,  in  truth,  fur- 
nish no  argument  on  either  side;  because  they  had 
no  relation  to  the  original  weekly  cycle.  It  is  very 
evident  that  the  Sabbath  cannot  be  on  fixed  days  of 
the  month,  as  in  the  ancient  calendars,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  be  a  fixed  day  of  the  original  weekly 
cycle. 

The  day  of  sun-worship  is  then  the  only  clue  to 
the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath,  for  it  is  the  only 
day  that  carries  any  proof,  reaching  back  prior  to 
the  naming  of  the  days,  that  it  had  any  fixed  relation 
to  the  original  weekly  cycle.  Its  proof  consists  in 
the  simple  fact  that,  while  the  ancient  sun-worship- 
ing nations  had  different  national  calendars,  yet,  in 
the  face  of  this  fact  the  day  of  sun-worship  was 
everywhere  the  same,  showing  that  it  was  univer- 
sally regarded  as  a  fixed  and  unchangeable  every 
seventh  day  from  the  beginning  of  time;  and  thus, 
by  reason  of  the  fixed  day  of  sun-worship,  the  origin 
nal  weekly  cycle  was  independent  of  all  national 


124  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

calendars  then,  jnst  as  it  is  still  independent  of 
all  national  calendars  now,  which  fact  can  only  be 
explained  in  its  nnbroken  continuance  from  the 
beginning  of  time. 

The  original  weekly  cycle  should  not  be  confused 
with  the  ancient  calendar  weeks  any  more  than 
mth  the  quarter  lunations  in  the  present  day  cal- 
endars; for  the  ancient  calendar  weeks  undoubt- 
edly had  their  origin  in  the  quarter  lunations  of  the 
moon,  and  were  doubtless  associated  with  ancient 
moon-worship  just  as  the  original  weekly  cycle  was 
associated  with  sun-worship. 

The  expressions,  "one  into  the  Sabbath,"  "two 
into  the  Sabbath,"  etc.,  found  in  a  number  of  the 
ancient  languages,  imply  a  method  of  counting  days 
as  distinct  from  the  regular  direct  method,  and 
therefore  indicates  the  existence  of  two  separate 
methods  of  counting  the  days  of  the  week. 

The  most  natural  conclusion,  then,  is  that  the 
days  of  the  original  and  universally  recognized 
weekly  cycle,  were  originally  known  by  the  simple 
and  direct  numbers  (as  naturally  the  older  method) 
and  later  by  the  astronomical  names,  and  that  the 
method  of  counting  "into  the  Sabbath"  applied  to 
certain  local  or  national  calendars  in  which,  begin- 
ning with  the  first  day  of  each  month  the  days  of 
each  week  were  counted  with  reference  to  the  Sab- 
bath, and,  as  the  count  always  began  with  the  first 
day  of  each  month,  and  as  four  seven  day  weeks 
fell  short  of  a  (29  or  30  day)  month,  it  was  neces- 
sery  to  add  one  or  two  intercalary  days  to  fill  out 
each  month, — which  were  added  either  at  the  end 
or  at  different  points  in  the  month,  according  to  the 
method  of  dividing  the  lunations. 


ANCIENT    CALENDARS   AND   LANGUAGES  125 

It  is  very  evident  that  these  irregularly  timed 
Sabbaths  (because  of  the  intercalary  days)  had  no 
fixed  relation  to  the  original  weekly  cycle,  and  hence 
can  prove  nothing  in  regard  to  the  day  of  the  origi- 
nal Sabbath. 

A.  H.  Lewis,  D.  D.  (Seventh-day  Baptist)  in  his 
book  entitled  '' Sabbath  and  Sunday,"  on  page  90, 
starts  out  to  prove  by  the  ancient  calendars  that 
the  Sabbath  was  always  the  seventh  day  of  the  week 
in  unbroken  succession  from  the  beginning  of  time. 
On  pages  91  and  92,  he  quotes  from  the  Encyclo- 
pedia  Brittannica  to  the  effect  that  the  ancient  Acca- 
dian  calendar  consisted  of  twelve  months  of  thirtv 
days  each,  and  belonged  to  about  2200  B.  C,  and  that 
it  passed  on  to  the  Assyrians.  On  page  96,  he  quotes 
from  Prof.  Sayce,  who  states  that  the  Accadian 
months  were  lunar,  and  also,  that  in  the  Assyrian 
calendar  discovered  by  Mr.  Geo.  Smith  in  1869,  the 
7th,  14th,  21st,  and  28th  days  of  each  month  were 
termed  days  of  sidum,  or  rest. 

Of  course  Mr.  Lewis'  point  here  is,  that  in  this 
perhaps  most  ancient  calendar,  the  Sabbaths  were 
on  the  seventh  day  of  the  calendar  week.  But  he 
makes  no  attempt  to  explain  the  necessary  intercal- 
ary days  between  the  28th  of  each  month  and  the 
1st  of  the  next,  which,  as  we  have  shown,  is  abso- 
lutely fatal  to  his  argument,  because  the  necessary 
intercalary  days  at  the  end  of  each  month  makes  it 
impossible  for  these  Sabbaths  to  have  had  any  fixed 
relation  to  the  original  weekly  cycle;  nor  does  he 
attempt  to  deny  that  the  months  were  either  lunar 
or  thirty  days,  and  that  the  count  always  began  with 


3-26  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

tEe  first  Say  of  each  montli.  Now  lie  cannot  be  igno- 
rant of  the  fact  that  the  Sabbath  cannot  be  on  fixed 
days  of  the  month  and  at  the  same  time  be  a  fixed 
day  of  the  original  weekly  cycle. 

The  only  possible  point  that  Mr.  Lewis  can  here 
make  is  the  recognition  of  the  seventh  day  sense  of 
the  Sabbath,  which  we  freely  admit  is  the  true  rest 
day  sense  of  the  Sabbath.  The  first  day  of  the  week 
Sabbath  is  no  less  the  seventh  day  in  a  rest  day 
sense,  for  it  is  the  resting  from  the  six  days  before ; 
which  fact  no  time  calendar  can  change.  The 
seventh  day  sense  of  the  Sabbath  does  not  depend  on 
its  relation  to  the  time  week,  but  on  its  relation  to 
the  days  from  which  it  is  the  resting. 

Now  since  these  ancient  calendars  were  all  a 
breaking  away  from  the  original  weekly  cycle,  noth- 
ing was  more  natural  and  to  be  expected  than  that 
the  rest  days  would  be  recognized,  in  some  of  them  at 
least,  as  the  seventh  day  of  the  week.  Now  if  the 
ancient  Assyrians  or  Accadians  observed  as  a  rest 
day  the  seventh  day  of  their  calendar  week  and  at 
the  same  time  observed  the  seventh  day  of  the  origi- 
nal week,  then  six-sevenths  of  the  time  they  kept 
two  rest  days  a  week  (one-seventh  of  the  time  the 
[two  lines  of  Sabbaths  would  coincide),  which  it  will 
certainly  be  admitted,  is  extremely  improbable,  and 
certain  it  is  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  to 
that  effect.  The  very  fact  that  these  people  kept 
the  seventh  day  of  their  calendar  week  practically 
proves  that  they  did  not  keep  the  seventh  day  of 
the  original  week.  And  we  may  reasonably  con- 
clude also,  that  they  did  not  keep  the  day  of  sun- 
>\^orship  strictly  in  a  rest  day  sense;  for  in  so  far 


ANCIENT   CALENDARS   AND  LANGUAGES  127. 

as  the  rest  day  sense  of  the  original  Sabbath  was 
transferred  to  the  seventh  day  of  the  calendar  week, 
we  may  infer  that  it  was  withdrawn  from  the  day  of 
sun-worship  (original  day  of  the  Sabbath),  and 
therefore,  that  only  the  worship  sense  remained 
with  the  day  of  sun-worship,  except  in  so  far  as  sun- 
worship  involved  the  cessation  from  ordinary  labor. 
It  now  devolves  upon  Mr.  Lewis  to  prove,  either; 
that  these  Assyrian  rest  days  were  in  direct  unbrok- 
en line  of  succession  with  the  original  every  seventh 
day  Sabbath,  in  spite  of  the  intercalary  days  at  the 
end  of  each  month,  or  else  that  six-sevenths  of  the 
time  they  kept  two  Sabbaths  or  rest  days  a  week; 
and  it  is  very  evident  that  he  can  do  neither.  Hence 
the  fact  remains  that  the  day  of  sun-worship  is  the 
only  day  that  carries  any  proof  that  it  had  a  fixed 
relation  to  the  original  weekly  cycle. 

Mr.  Lewis  next  takes  up  the  calendar  of  India, 
and  on  page  107  quotes  from  Sacred  Boohs  of  the 
East  (Max  Miiller — Vol.  5,  page  406)  as  follows: 
*'The  first  weekly  period  begins  with  a  day  dedi- 
cated to  Anharmazd,  and  called  by  his  own  name; 
and  each  of  the  three  other  weekly  periods  also  be- 
gins with  a  day  dedicated  to  Anharmazd,  but  called 
by  the  name  of  Din,  religion,  with  the  name  of  the 
following  day  added  as  a  cognomen.  The  first  week 
therefore  consists  of  the  day  of  Anharmazd,  fol- 
lowed by  six  days The  second  Aveek  consists 

of  the  day  Din-with-Ataro,  followed  by  six  days .... 
The  third  week  consists  of  the  day  Din-with-Mitro, 

followed  by  seven  days And  the  fourth  week 

consists  of  the  day  Din-with-Dino,  followed  by  seven 
days.'' 


128  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Here  we  have  two  seven  day  weeks  and  two  eight 
day  weeks,  and  the  marked  day,  or  Sabbath,  is  on 
the  first  (not  the  seventh)  day  of  each. 

Mr.  Lewis  says,  on  page  108,  that  the  two  weeks 
of  eight  days  is  to  meet  the  inealary  difficulty.  Here 
he  recognizes  the  intercalary  difficulty.  Then  why 
does  he  totally  ignore  it  in  his  argument? — Evi- 
dently because  he  cannot  do  otherwise.  But  this 
very  intercalary  difficulty  is  the  fact  that  is  fatal  to 
Ills  whole  argument,  as  we  have  already  shown. 

Mr.  Lewis  inserted  this  quotation,  we  presume, 
only  as  bearing  on  the  origin  of  the  week.  But  these 
weeks  plainly  could  not  be  identical  with  the  origi- 
nal week,  so  that  we  must  conclude  that  each  existed 
independently  of  the  other, — the  original  week  as 
universal  and  international,  and  the  other  as  only 
national  and  local. 

Mr.  Lewis  next  takes  up  the  Hindus,  or  Buddhist, 
calendar  and  quotes  from  Sacred  Boohs  of  the  East, 
(Vol.  12,  p.p.  251  and  254,  foot  notes),  *^1.  Uposatha 
is  the  name  for  the  sacred  day  of  the  moon's  changes 
— first  and  more  especially,  the  full-moon  day;  next 
the  new-moon  day;  and  lastly  the  days  equidistant 
between  these  two.  It  was  therefore  a  weekly  sa- 
cred day,  and  as  Childers  says,  may  often  be  well 
rendered  Sabbath.''  *^2.  Uposatha,  a  weekly  sa- 
cred day,  being  full-moon  day,  new-moon  day,  and 
two  equidistant  intermediate  days." 

Mr.  Lewis  cannot  be  ignorant  of  the  fact  that 
these  sacred  days  on  the  moon's  changes  would  nec- 
essarily involve  an  occasional  eight  day  week,  since 
four  seven  day  weeks  fall  about  one  and  one-half 


Als^CIENT    CALENDARS   AND   LANGUAGES  129 

days  sliort  of  a  complete  lunation,  and  therefore 
that  the  weeks  of  this  calendar  could  not  coincide 
with  the  original  weekly  cycle.  Moreover,  here,  as 
in  the  preceding  associated  calendar,  the  sacred  days 
were  evidently  on  the  first  day  of  the  week;  for  the 
lunar  month  would  naturally  begin  with  the  begin- 
ning of  the  lunation,  and  if  the  first  week  began 
with  the  sacred  day  of  the  moon's  change,  the 
others  would  also. 

In  the  last  two  calendars  the  paramount  sense  of 
these  special  days  seems  to  be  not  rest  but  worship, 
which  will  explain  why  they  were  not  on  the  last 
day  of  the  week;  while  in  the  Assyrian  calendar  they 
are  specially  designated  as  rest  days,  and  we  notice 
that  they  were  on  the  seventh  days,  counting  from 
the  first  of  the  month,  regardless  of  the  moon's 
changes,  and  that  the  intercalary  days  were  ahvays 
inserted  at  the  end  of  each  month. 

These  calendar  sacred  first  days  of  the  week  are 
not  to  be  confused  with  the  universally  fixed  day  of 
sun-worship;  and  that  both  were  observed  is  in 
accord  with  the  fact  that  each  day  of  the  original 
week  was  dedicated  to  the  worship  of  some  god — 
sometimes  more  than  one.  These  calendar  first  days 
would  fall  on  different  days  of  the  original  week  in 
turn  in  regularly  repeating  cycles  (varying  with  the 
nature  of  the  calendar) ;  thus  during  each  complete 
cycle  honoring  each  god  equally  in  turn  in  the  cal- 
endar first  day  of  the  week  sacred  day.  We  might 
even  infer  that  instead  of  each  day  involving  the 
worship  of  some  god,  that  the  god  to  be  worshiped  in 
turn  was  determined  by  the  day  of  the  original  week 
on  which  the  first  day  of  the  calendar  week  fell. 


.  130  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

"When  the  calendar  first  day  fell  on  the  day  of  sun- 
worship,  it  would  only  add  its  luster,  and  thus  in  no 
way  conflict  with  sun-worship. 

Since  the  rest  element  in  connection  with  worship 
was  largely  lost  sight  of,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  any  time  was  lost  from  ordinary  labor  more 
than  was  necessarily  involved  in  worship,  and  that 
ordinarily  no  considerable  part  of  the  day  was  in- 
volved, and  doubtless  the  worship  consisted  largely 
of  private  morning  and  evening  devotions. 

On  page  106,  Mr.  Lewis  quotes  from  H.  H.  Wilson, 
A.  M.,  F.  R.  S.,  Professor  of  Sanscrit,  Oxford, 
Works,  Vol.  2  of  Essays  on  ^'The  Religion  of  the 
Hindus,''  p.p.  198-201,  as  follows:  ^'The  specifica- 
tion of  the  days  of  the  week  by  the  names  of  the 
planets,  is,  as  is  well  known,  familiar  to  the  Hindus 
Sunday  is  one  of  every  seven.  This  is  some- 
what different  from  the  Seventh  Tithi,  or  lunar  day ; 
but  a  sort  of  sanctity  is  or  was  attached  even  to 
Sunday,  and  fasting  on  it  was  considered  obligatory 
or  meritorious It  is  impossible  to  avoid  infer- 
ring from  the  general  character  of  the  prayers  and 
observances  and  the  sanctity  evidently  attached  to 
the  recurring  seventh  day,  some  connection  with  the 
Sabbath,  or  Seventh  of  the  Hebrew  Heptameron." 

Here  Mr.  Wilson  first  recognizes  the  fact  that  the 
Hindus  were  familiar  with  the  original  week  in  the 
seven  invariable  names  of  the  days.  Then  he  plain- 
ly refers  to  two  separate  methods  of  reckoning  time, 
in  that  Sunday  Avas  an  every  seventh  day,  but  that 
the  lunar  seventh  day  had  a  ^'somewhat  different 
meaning,"  i.  e.,  not  always  an  every  seventh  day. 
Then  he  refers  to  the  fact  that  this  every  seventh 


ANCIENT   CALENDARS  AND  LANGUAGES  131 

day,  Sunday,  was  regarded  as  a  sacred  day  (thus 
corresponding  to  the  day  of  sun-worship),  and  that 
the  general  character  of  the  devotions  on  that  day 
was  similar  to  that  of  the  Hebrew  Sabbath.  This 
is  certainly  all  that  can  legitimately  be  made  out  of 
the  quotation.  The  words,  ^^the  recurring  seventh 
day''  (which  Mr.  Lewis  probably  infers  to  mean 
** seventh  day  of  the  week''),  the  connection  shows, 
can  only  refer  to  the  every  seventh  day  Sunday.  We 
have  already  shown  that  the  sacred  days  of  the 
Hindu  calendar  were  on  the  first,  not  the  seventh 
day  in  the  calendar  week.  Besides,  no  day  of  this 
calendar  week  could  always  be  an  every  seventh 
day  because  of  the  intercalary  days  involved.  Hence 
Mr.  Wilson  refers  to  Sunday  which  he  expressly 
states  was  an  every  seventh  day. 

These  are  the  only  calendars  to  which  Mr.  Lewis 
refers. 

We  will  now  collect  the  remaining  quotations  that 
have  any  bearing  on  the  Sabbath  question : — 

1.  Page  92. — ^^The  week  of  seven  days  was  in 
use  from  an  early  period,  indeed,  the  names  which 
w^e  still  give  to  the  days  can  be  traced  to  Ancient 
Babylonia;  and  the  seventh  day  was  one  of  sulum, 
or  rest." — Encyc.  Brittannica. 

2.  Page  93. — ^'The  sexagesimal  division  of  the 
circle,  the  signs  of  the  zodiac,  a  week  of  seven  days, 
named  as  we  now  name  them,  and  the  seventh  a  day 
of  rest,  are  all  Accadian." — Library  of  Universal 
Knoivledge. 

3.  Page  96. — ^^  Seven  was  a  sacred  number 
among  the  Accadians,  and  their  lunar  months  were 


132  SABBATS     THEOLOGY 

at  an  early  epocli  divided  into  periods  of  seven  days 
each.  The  days  were  dedicated  to  the  sun  and  moon 
and  five  planets,  and  to  the  deities  who  presided 
over  these." — Prof.  Sayce. 

These  three  quotations  plainly  confuse  the  origi- 
nal week  with  the  Accadian  calendar,  in  which  the 
7th,  14th,  21st,  and  28th  days  of  each  month  were 
designated  as  days  of  rest.  But  these  days  could 
not  continuously  coincide  with  the  seventh  day  of 
the  orignal  unbroken  seven-day  cycle,  because  o?. 
the  necessary  intercalary  days  at  the  end  of  each 
month. 

4.  Page  98. — ^'Even  the  word  Sabhath  itself  was 
not  unknown  to  the  Assyrians." — Sayce. 

5.  Page  103. — ^^We  have  also  historical  evidence 
as  to  the  non-Jewish  origin  of  the  observance  of  the 

seventh    day For    Philo    Judaens,    Josephus, 

Clemen  of  Alexandria  and  others,  speak  plainly  of 
the  week  as  not  of  Jewish  origin,  but  common  to 
all  the  Oriental  nations." — Proctor. 

The  Accadian  calendar,  with  its  seventh  day  Sab- 
bath, was  much  older  than  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and 
hence  ^^the  observance  of  the  seventh  day"  did  not 
originate  with  the  Jews. 

6.  Page  103. — ^^  Amongst  all  the  nations  which 
used  the  week  as  a  division  of  time,  the  seventh  day 
was  associated  with  the  planet  Saturn." — Proctor. 

This  was  true  of  the  seventh  day  of  the  original 
week,  but  could  not  at  the  same  time  be  true  of 
the  seventh  day  in  the  various  calendars  which  did 
not  even  coincide  with  each  other. 

7.  Page  105. — *^ Saturn's  day  was  always  con- 
nected with  the  Jewish  Sabbath." — Philosophical 
Museum, 


ANCIENT   CALENDARS   AND   LANGUAGES  133 

This  could  be  strictly  true  only  in  a  reversed 
sense,  for  the  name  ^'Saturn's  day''  existed  before 
the  name  *^  Jewish"  could  be  applied  to  the  Sabbath. 

8.  Page  109. — ^ '  Throughout  all  the  nations  of  the 
ancient  world  the  planets  are  to  be  found  appropri- 
ated to  the  days  of  the  week.  The  seven-day  cycle 
with  each  named  after  a  planet,  and  universally  the 
same  day  allotted  to  the  same  planet  in  all  the  na- 
tions of  the  world,  constitute  the  first  proof  and 
leave  no  room  to  doubt  that  one  system  must  have 
prevailed  over  the  whole.'' — Godfrey  Higgin's 
AnaclypsiSj  Book  1,  Chap.  1,  sec.  5. 

9.  Page  110. — '^We  find  from  time  immemorial, 
the  use  of  this  period  among  all  nations  without  any 
variation  in  the  form  of  it.  The  Israelites,  As- 
syrians, Egyptians,  Indians,  Arabians,  and,  in  a 
word,  all  the  nations  of  the  Orient,  have,  in  all  ages, 
made  use  of  a  week  of  seven  days.  We  find  the 
same  custom  among  the  ancient  Eomans,  Gauls,  Bri- 
tons, Germans,  the  nations  of  the  North,  and  Ameri- 
ca. Many  vain  conjectures  have  been  formed  con- 
cerning the  reason  and  motives  which  determined  all 
mankind  to  agree  in  this  primitive  division  of  time ; 
but  it  is  evident  that  the  tradition  concerning  the 
length  of  time  employed  in  the  creation  of  the  world 
has  given  rise  to  this  usage,  universal  and  imme- 
morial, which  originally  divided  the  week  into  seven 
days." — President  Gognet  of  France. 

These  last  two  quotations  bear  strong  testimony 
to  the  unbroken  continuance  of  the  original  weekly 
cycle. 

Note  how  perfect  the  harmony  throughout  all 
these  testimonies  when  we  recognize  the  original 


134  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

week  and  the  ancient  calendars  as  existing  togetlier/ 
and  independently  of  each  other,  bnt  how  otherwise 
irreconcilable  the  confusion.  The  only  reasonable 
conclusion  is,  that  the  original  weekly  cycle  was  inde- 
pendent of  all  national  calendars  then,  as  now,  and 
universally  regarded  as  reaching  back  to  the  begin- 
ning of  time,  and  recognized  as  the  true  time  week 
by  all  nations  alike,  and  had  thus  an  international 
application  while  the  various  other  calendars  had 
each  only  a  local  or  national  application. 

The  names  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  five  planets  were 
applied  only  to  the  days  of  the  original  week,  the 
proof  of  which  is  in  the  fact  that  the  names  never 
exceeded  seven  while  the  local  or  calendar  weeks 
sometimes  contained  eight  or  nine  days,  and  nine 
names  would  have  been  needed.  Or,  if  we  suppose 
that  the  intercalary  days  were  given  no  names,  still 
the  regular  rotation  of  the  seven  days  would  be 
broken.  But  this  supposition  is  contradicted  in  the 
uniformity  of  the  day  of  sun-worship ;  for  if  it  was 
not  regulated  by  a  universally  recognized  week,  but 
by  the  various  calendar  weeks  of  the  different  na- 
tions, it  would  evidently  not  be  on  the  same  day  in 
the  different  nations;  but  there  is  not  the  slightest 
hint  of  any  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  day  of  sun-wor- 
ship throughout  the  world. 

Thus  we  are  brought  back  to  the  day  of  sun-wor- 
ship, in  its  continuance  of  the  original  day  of  the 
Sabbath,  as  the  onlv  monument  to  the  unbroken  con- 
tinuance  of  the  original  v/eekly  cycle. 

We  have  now  examined  every  quotation  that  has 
any  bearing  on  the  Sabbath :  the  rest  have  a  bearing 
only  on  the  origin  and  the  unbroken  continuance  of 


ANCIENT    CALENDARS   AND    LANGUAGES  135 

the  weekly  cycle,  and  on  tliis  point  we  fully  agree 
with  Mr.  Lewis. 

In  justice  to  Mr.  Lewis  we  must  admit  that  he  does 
not  rest  his  Sabbath  argument  here,  for  if  he  did, 
it  would  certainly  not  be  much  to  his  credit.  He  ap- 
parently takes  it  for  granted  that  he  has  already 
proven  in  preceding  chapters  that  the  Sabbath  was, 
by  reason  of  the  Creation  model,  the  original  seventh 
day  of  the  week,  and  that  all  he  has  to  do  here  is  to 
prove  that  the  week  was  never  changed. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  chapter,  he  says,  ^^If  the 
week  which  antedates  Moses  and  existed  among  the 
nations  that  flourished  before  the  time  of  the  Hebrew 
nation  is  identical  with  the  Hebrew  and  the  Chris- 
tian week,  then  it  is  certain  that  there  was  no 
change  of  the  week  or  of  the  Sabbath,  when  the 
Israelites  left  Egypt,  as  certain  men  claim  who  are 
more  visionary  than  scholarly. '  ^ 

Mr.  Lewis'  conception  of  the  ancient  calendar 
weeks,  with  their  occasional  intercalary  days,  as 
identical  with  the  Hebrew  and  the  Christian  week 
is  certainly  ^^more  visionary  than  scholarly.'' 

We  will  now  undertake  to  prove  by  Mr.  Lewis' 
own  words  the  reverse  of  what  he  intends  to  teach. 
He  says: 

1.  Page  8.  ^^ God's  power  is  infinite,  measure- 
less, His  acts,  and  the  time  in  which  He  performs 
them,  are  also  unmeasurable  by  us.  We  apprehend 
that  the  creative  week  was  infinitely  longer  than  our 
week  of  seven  days  of  twenty-four  hours." 

2.  Page  46. — *^  There  could  have  been  no  Sab- 
bath if  God  had  not  rested  on  a  definite  day,  for  a 


136  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

definite  purpose,  wliich  no  other  day  could  answer." 
3.  Page  118. — **  These  facts  give  all  needful  logi- 
cal and  historical  support  to  the  claim  that  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week,  improperly  called  Satur- 
day, is  the  Sabbath  of  Jehovah  in  regular  succes- 
sion from  the  hour  when  the  morning  stars  sang  to- 
gether, and  the  sons  of  God  shouted  for  joy.'* 

In  the  first  quotation,  Mr.  Lewis  admits  that  the 
creation  days  were  indefinite  periods,  and  therefore 
not  time  days.  Then  it  is  self-evident  that  the  first 
day  of  the  first  week  of  time  was  the  first  day  of 
time  on  which  God  rested  from  the  Creation.  The 
second  quotation  is  a  definite  claim  that  God's  rest 
day  was  the  starting  point  of  the  Sabbath.  The 
third  quotation  could  not  be  a  more  definite  asser- 
tion that  the  week  was  never  changed.  Then,  ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Lewis'  own  statements,  it  necessarily 
follows:  that  the  original  Sabbath  was  on  the  first 
day  of  the  week  (corresponding  to  the  day  of  sun- 
worship)  and  was  not  changed  before  the  giving  of 
the  manna ;  and  if  the  Sabbath  was  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week  before  the  manna,  and  on  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week  after  the  manna,  then  the  day  must 
have  been  changed  by  the  manna;  and,  if  changed 
by  the  manna,  it  was  not  a  fixed  unchangeable  day; 
and,  if  not  a  fixed  unchangeable  day,  then  the  Sab- 
bath law  did  not  ^x  the  day  of  the  Sabbath.  We 
could  ask  no  more  positive  arguments  for  these  facts 
than  Mr.  Lewis  gives  in  his  own  words. 

But  Mr.  Lewis  argues  that  ^'Our  week  is  modeled 
after  God's  by  His  command"  (p.  8).  Can  Mr. 
Lewis  deny  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  rest  from 
the  six  days  before,  just  as  God's  resting  was  from 


ANCIENT    CALENDARS   AND    LANGUAGES  137 

the  six  creation  days  before,  and  hence  the  seventh 
day  in  the  true  model  or  rest  sense!  Does  he  think 
that  any  time  division  can  change  a  fact? — Nothing 
in  heaven  or  earth  can  change  a  fact  that  is  a  fact. 
Or  does  he  think  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  rest 
from  the  six  days  after  instead  of  the  six  days  be- 
fore? 

If  Mr.  Lewis  insists  on  modeling  the  time  week 
after  God's  creation  model,  then  he  must  put  the 
Sabbath  on  the  seventh  day  although  God  rested  on 
the  first  day.  But  he  says  (p.  46),  ^^No  other  day 
could  answer''  but  the  day  on  which  God  rested; 
and  his  whole  fixed  unchangeable  day  doctrine 
depends  on  God's  rest  as  the  fact,  making  it  fixed 
and  unchangeable.  His  only  escape  from  this  dilem- 
ma is  to  accept  the  twenty-four-hour  creation-day 
theory  (making  time  begin  with  the  first  day  of  crea- 
tion) and  at  least  be  consistent. 

Again  Mr.  Lewis  says  (page  116),  **It  is  impos- 
sible to  believe  that  God  deceived  the  Israelites  at 
Sinai  by  founding  the  Sabbath  on  His  own  example, 
and  then  designating  a  day  not  in  the  regular  order 
from  the  Adamic  Sabbath.  It  would  have  been 
sheer  deception  thus  to  do.  The  Sabbath  law  rested 
on  a  false  foundation  from  the  beginning,  if  the  day 
designated  in  the  law  was  not  the  true  one,  and  God 
was  the  immediate  author  of  the  cheat. ' ' 

Mr.  Lewis  here  assumes  that  the  law  designated 
the  day  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  whereas  the  manna, 
not  the  law,  designated  the  day.  Then  the  institu- 
tion, not  the  day,  was  the  foundation  on  which  the 
law  rested. 


138  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

If  the  day  of  the  original  Sabbath  was  the  same  as 
the  day  of  sun-worship,  then  God  had  good  reason 
for  changing  it  for  the  Israelites,  to  make  it  a  sign 
between  Him  and  them,  and  also  to  remove  so  far  as 
possible  the  influence  of  sun-worship.  * 

Again,  the  reason  on  which  the  Sabbath  was 
founded  was  the  entire  creation  model,  not  God's 
rest  alone.  Mr.  Lewis  evidently  reads  the  creation 
reason  appended  to  the  fourth  commandment  as  if 
the  ** wherefore"  referred  only  to  God's  resting; 
whereas,  the  grammatical  construction  requires  that 
it  refer  to  the  entire  preceding  clause,  including  the 
entire  creation  model.  God  worked  six  days  and 
rested  the  seventh,  which  He  gave  as  the  reason  why 
He  required  the  Israelites  to  do  the  same,  and  this 
did  not  involve  any  deception. 

Again,  Mr.  Lewis  says  (p:  117),  ^^  Christ,  who  is 
the  center  of  all  dispensations,  recognized  the  Sab- 
bath as  a  part  of  his  Father's  law  and  pruned  it 
that  it  might  bring  forth  more  and  better  fruit. ' '  If 
the  law  did  not  fix  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  then 
Christ  recognized  the  Sabbath  as  an  institution,  not 
as  a  fixed  day. 

A  comparison  of  the  fruit  of  the  Sunday  and  of 
the  Saturday  Sabbaths  would  certainly  not  be  favor- 
able to  the  latter. 

TESTIMONY   OF    ANCIENT    AND    MODEKN   LANGUAGES. 

We  have  a  practical  summary  of  this  testimony 
from  the  Seventh-day  Baptist  view  in  The  Chart  of 
Weeks  by  Eev.  William  M.  Jones,  D.  D.  (Seventh- 
day  Baptist)  of  London,  England. 


ANCIENT   CALENDARS   AND   LANGUAGES  139 

It  is  claimed  tliat  ont  of  tlie  one  Imnclred  and  sixty 
ancient  and  modern  languages  investigated,  one  hun- 
dred and  eight  know  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  by 
the  name  of  ^^ Sabbath'^  or  its  equivalent,  and  that 
all  testify  to  the  order  and  identity  of  the  days  of 
the  ancient  and  modern  week. 

This,  of  course,  is  fully  indorsed  by  Adventists, 
and  one  Adventist  writer  says  {The  Lord's  Day: 
The  Test  of  the  Ages,  page  21),  '^It  might  be  well 
here,  in  view  of  this  impregnable  wall  of  testimony, 
to  ask.  What  becomes  of  that  theory  which  claims 
that  Sunday  was  the  original  seventh  day  to  all  the 
world  save  the  JewsT^  Since  the  Chart  is  thus 
regarded  as  an  *^ impregnable  wall  of  testimony," 
it  ought  to  be  worthy  of  some  consideration. 

The  first  column  of  the  Chart  (which  is  in  four 
large  sheets)  gives  the  name  of  each  language;  the 
second  column  gives  the  name  of  the  week  as  a 
whole  in  each  language;  the  remainder  of  the  Chart 
is  divided  into  seven  columns,  corresponding  to  the 
seven  days  of  the  week  and  numbered  accordingly. 
In  each  language  the  name  of  each  day  of  the  week 
(in  the  original,  the  transliteration,  and  the  Eng- 
lish) is  put  in  the  column  designated  for  that  day. 

It  is  a  very  simple  and  easy  matter  to  thus  line  up 
the  days  of  the  different  languages  to  conform  to  a 
prearranged  seven  column  file ;  and  there  is  nothing 
on  the  face  of  the  Chart  to  show  that  this  lining 
up  was  not  purely  arbitrary  on  the  part  of  the 
author. 

The  Chart  totally  ignores  the  intercalary  days 
necessarily  involved  in  all  of  the  ancient  calendars 
outside  of  the  original  weekly  cycle;  which  fact  at 


140  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

once  renders  it  valueless  as  reliable  evidence  on  the 
Sabbath  question. 

The  ancient  languages  necessarily  bear  the  same 
testimony  as  the  ancient  calendars,  for  they  must 
necessarily  correspond.  We  have  already  pointed 
out  the  fact  that  the  weeks  of  those  ancient  calendars 
with  their  occasional  intercalary  days — and  which 
did  not  even  coincide  among  themselves — could  not 
coincide  with  the  original  weekly  cycle ;  and  it  neces- 
sarily follows  that  the  Sabbaths,  or  specially  marked 
days  of  those  calendars,  could  have  no  fixed  rela- 
tion to  the  original  weekly  cycle.  Hence  the  Chart 
proves  nothing  as  to  the  identity  of  the  ancient  cal- 
endar weeks  with  the  modern  (or  original)  week,  nor 
to  the  identity  of  the  ancient  calendar  Sabbaths 
with  the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath. 

Again,  assuming  that  Dr.  Lewis  made  the  best 
showing  possible  out  of  the  ancient  calendars,  and 
that  in  two  out  of  the  three  cases  presented  by  him, 
the  specially  marked  days  were  on  the  first,  not  the 
seventh,  day  of  the  week,  we  may  fairly  conclude 
that  the  marked  days,  claimed  as  Sabbaths,  were  as 
often  on  the  first  as  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  week 
in  the  ancient  calendars. 

Of  course,  the  word  translated  ^ ^Sabbath''  is,  in 
the  Chart,  invariably  put  as  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week,  just  as  the  word  ^^ Sabbath''  in  the  fourth 
commandment  is  invariably  interpreted  by  S.  D. 
Baptists  and  Adventists,  and  proves  no  more  in  one 
case  than  in  the  other. 

In  eighty-seven  of  the  languages,  the  word  trans- 
lated *^ Sabbath''  is  thus  arbitrarily  put  as  the  sev- 
enth day  of  the  week.    These  from  the  one  hundred 


ANCIENT   CALENDAES  AND   LANGUAGES  141 

and  eight  claimed  for  the  seventh  day  of  the  week 
Sabbath  leaves  twenty-one  in  which  the  equivalent 
of  the  word  ^^  Sabbath  ^^  is  supposed  to  be  found. 
Six  of  these  equivalents  are  translated  ^^Bath  day.'' 
The  remaining  fifteen  are  as  follows :  1.  "  Chief  or 
Rejoicing  Day;"  2.  (Day)  Seven;  3.  A  day  to  wash 
clothes,  ^'Purification  Day;''  4.  the  Seventh  Planet 

5.  The  Eye  of  God — Saturn,  Seventh  Brilliant  Star 

6.  Day  Seven;  7.  Day;  8.  The  Son  of  the  Sun 
Saturn;  9.  Saturn  Planet;  10.  Worship-day  Seven 
11.  Day  in  order  Seven;  12.  One  Quarter  (of  the 
moon  or  lunation) ;  13.  Half-day;  14.  Diag  day  (day 
without  work)  (week-back) ;  15.  Hinder  end-day. 
Some  of  these  are  certainly  very  far-fetched  equiva- 
lents for  the  word  '^Sabbath." 

The  eighty-seven  languages  in  which  the  word 
translated  ''Sabbath"  is  supposed  to  refer  to  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week,  includes  thirty-six,  or  near- 
ly all  of  the  modern  European  languages ;  and  it  is 
a  well  known  fact  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  almost 
universally  recognized  all  over  Europe.  But  yet 
the  Chart  represents  that  the  word  "Sabbath"  in 
all  these  languages  refers  only  to  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week.  This  one  fact  alone  shows  the  arbitrary 
character  of  the  whole  Chart. 

Of  course,  Adventists  and  S.  D.  Baptists  regard 
the  word  "Sabbath"  in  all  languages  just  as  they  do 
in  the  English,  and  in  the  English  just  as  they  do  in 
the  Bible,  and  throughout  the  Bible  just  as  they  do 
in  the  fourth  commandment,  and  everywhere  and 
always  that  it  means  only  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week.  They  cannot,  consistently  with  their  doctrine, 
recognize  for  an  instant  any  other  possibility. 


142  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Hence  Mr.  Jones'  Sabbath  doctrine  is  the  key  to 
his  Chart.  The  Chart  is  an  ^^impregnable  wall  of 
testimony '^  in  just  the  same  sense  that  all  their  ar- 
guments are  impregnable — to  themselves,  but  to 
nobody  else. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE    SATUEDAY    EESUEEECTION    THEOEY    EXAMINED. 

Dr.  Lewis  in  his  book,  Sabbath  and  Sunday,  page 
59,  thus  states  his  theory  regarding  the  day  of  the 
Resurrection : — 

*  ^  Christ  was  crucified  and  entombed  on  the  fourth 
day  of  the  week,  commonly  called  Wednesday.  He 
lay  in  the  grave  ^ Three  days  and  three  nights'  and 
rose  'late  in  the  Sabbath'  at  an  hour  corresponding 
with  the  hour  of  His  entombment,  at  which  time 
two  of  the  women  came  to  see  the  sepulchre." 

On  page  57,  he  says  that  he  published  this  propo- 
sition about  1865 ;  from  which  we  infer  that  he  is  the 
originator  of  the  theory. 

His  argument  begins  with  Matt.  12  :  40,  ''For  as 
Jonah  was  three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  belly 
of  the  whale ;  so  shall  the  Son  of  man  be  three  days 
and  three  nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth."  From 
Matt.  27  :  57-60  and  John  19  :  31,42,  he  concludes 
(p.  52)  "that  it  was  late  in  the  day,  just  before  the 
setting  of  the  sun,  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  laid 
in  the  grave,"  and  argues  that  the  Resurrection 
must  be  at  the  same  hour  of  the  day  to  make  true 


-^ 


144  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

the  prophecy  of  ''three  days  and  three  nights;" 
and  his  argument  finally  rests  on  Matt.  28  :  1,  R.  V., 
^^Now  late  on  the  Sabbath  day,  as  it  began  to  dawn 
toward  the  first  day  of  the  week,  came  Mary  Magda- 
lene and  the  other  Mary  to  see  the  sepulchre." 
The  argument  here  turns  on  the  words  ^4ate"  and 
*^dawn"  as  regards  their  correct  rendering  in  the 
original. 

This  is  a  brief  outline  of  Mr.  Lewis'  argument. 
It  is  evident  that  his  sole  aim  is  to  destroy  the  Resur- 
rection claim  of  the  Sunday  Sabbath.  But  does  he! 
Even  if  his  theory  were  true  I  If  Christ  rose  ^^just 
before  the  setting  of  the  sun''  (or  end  of  the  day) 
on  Saturday,  as  Mr.  Lewis  claims,  then  practically 
the  whole  of  Saturday  is  enshrouded  in  the  gloom  of 
the  grave,  and  the  whole  of  Sunday  is  enveloped  in 
the  glory  of  the  Resurrection.  Can  Saturday  be 
claimed  as  the  first  day  of  the  Resurrection  era 
with  twenty-three  twenty- fourths  of  it  in  the  tomb! 
Which  would  be  the  first  day  of  the  Resurrection  era 
in  the  true  sense — the  less  than  one  hour  of  Satur- 
day or  the  whole  of  Sunday?  For  the  Resurrection 
to  point  to  Saturday  as  the  day  of  the  Resurrection, 
it  would  have  to  point  backward,  not  forward.  Then 
did  the  Resurrection  point  backward  to  a  dead 
Christ  or  forward  to  a  living  Christ?  All  of  the 
despair  and  gloom  of  the  grave  belong  to  Saturday : 
all  of  the  joy  and  hope  of  the  Resurrection  belong  to 
Sunday.  And  all  of  Mr.  Lewis'  theory  cannot  re- 
verse it,  even  if  his  theory  were  true.  The  theory 
therefore  is  not  worthy  of  the  strained  effort  to 
prove  it,  and  only  indicates  the  character  of  the 
doctrine  that  it  is  meant  to  sustain. 


SATURDAY  EESUKRECTION   THEORY  145 

Mr.  Lewis  bases  liis  whole  argument  concerning 
tlie  time  of  the  Resurrection  on  Matt.  28  :  1.  On 
page  53,  he  says  that  Matthew  here  ^  Hells  of  a  visit 
previous  to  the  one  spoken  of  by  the  other  three 
writers.''  On  page  58,  he  says,  ^* Matthew  speaks  of 
the  first  visit  to  the  sepulchre  4ate  in  the  Sabbath,' 
to  which  visit  the  other  evangelists  do  not  refer; 
they  describe  a  second  visit  made  early  on  the  fol- 
lowing morning."  So  the  argument  here  depends  on 
whether  the  visit  described  by  Matthew  was  or  was 
not  the  same  as  that  described  by  Mark,  Luke  and 
John. 

On  page  59,  Mr.  Lewis  says,  ^'Matthew's  account 
of  the  first  visit  evidently  closes  with  the  eighth 
verse,  and  in  the  ninth  he  passes  to  the  scenes  of  the 
next  morning."  Let  us  then  read  these  two  verses. 
8.  *^And  they  departed  quickly  from  the  tomb  with 
fear  and  great  joy,  and  ran  to  bring  his  disciples 
word.  9.  And  behold,  Jesus  met  them,  saying.  All 
hail.  And  they  came  and  took  hold  of  his  feet,  and 
worshiped  him"  (R.  V.).  Jesus  then  said  to  them 
(verse  10),  ^^Fear  not;  go  tell  my  brethren  that  they 
depart  into  Galilee,  and  there  shall  they  see  me." 
(The  same  message  that  the  angel  gave  in  verse  7.) 
Then  they  had  not  yet  told  the  disciples ;  but  in  verse 
8  they  were  running  to  tell  the  disciples.  Hence  we 
must  conclude  that  before  they  had  time  to  tell  the 
disciples  Jesus  met  them.  But,  according  to  Mr. 
Lewis,  we  must  assume  that,  though  they  ran  in 
their  haste  to  tell  the  disciples,  they  changed  their 
mind  and  waited  till  morning  and  went  back  to  the 
tomb  without  telling  the  disciples,  and  then  on  their 
second  return  Jesus  met  them. 


146  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

If  Jesus  rose  just  before  sunset  on  Saturday  and 
the  fact  was  at  once  reported  by  the  women,  can  we 
imagine  the  disciples  so  unconcerned  as  to  calmly 
wait  till  morning  and  then  go  to  the  tomb  to  see  if 
the  report  were  true?  In  John  20  :  1-4  we  are  told 
that  Mary  Magdalene  ran  to  tell  Peter  and  John,  and 
they  ran  to  the  sepulchre,  and  John  in  his  haste  out- 
ran Peter,  showing  that  they  lost  no  time  in  going 
to  the  sepulchre  as  soon  as  they  heard  Mary's 
report. 

Again,  in  verse  6  of  Matthew's  account,  the  angel 
told  the  women  that  Jesus  was  risen,  and  said, 
*'Come  see  the  place  where  the  Lord  lay."  But  if 
Mr.  Lewis  is  right,  then,  according  to  Mark  and 
Luke,  they  went  back  the  next  morning  with  spices 
to  anoint  the  body.  Now  if  we  accept  Mr.  Lewis' 
view,  we  must  conclude  that,  though  the  angel  told 
them  that  the  Lord  was  risen,  they  did  not  believe  it, 
but  on  their  second  visit  to  the  tomb  took  spices  to 
anoint  His  body. 

Mark  16  :  1-3  says,  *  ^  Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary 
the  mother  of  James,  and  Salome,  bought  spices,  that 
they  might  come  and  anoint  Him.  And  very  early 
on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  they  came  to  the  tomb 
when  the  sun  was  risen.  And  they  were  saying 
among  themselves.  Who  shall  roll  us  away  the  stone 
from  the  door  of  the  tomb"  (B.  V.).  Here  we 
notice :  1.  Two  of  the  women  are  the  same  as  men- 
tioned by  Matthew.  2.  This  visit  is  clearly  stated 
to  be  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  Now,  why  did 
they  bring  spices  to  anoint  the  body  of  Jesus  and 
why  did  they  wonder  who  should  roll  away  the  stone, 
if  on  the  evening  before  the  angel  rolled  back  the 


SATURDAY  RESUERECTION  THEORY  147 

stone  (Matt.  28  :  2)  and  told  them  that  Jesus  wa^ 
risen,  and  showed  them  the  place  where  he  lay? 

Thus  we  see  the  irreconcilable  contradictions  in- 
volved in  Mr.  Lewis'  two  visit  theory;  and  we  see 
also  that  the  circumstantial  evidences  are  sufficient 
to  fully  identify  all  four  accounts  as  referring  to  one 
and  the  same  visit. 

Mr.  Lewis  admits  that  three  of  these  accounts! 
refer  to  a  visit  in  the  morning,  and  we  can  be  sure 
that  he  would  not  make  this  admission  if  there  was 
any  possibility  of  avoiding  it.  Then  we  have  three 
sure  witnesses,  as  against  one  doubtful  witness^ 
that  the  visit  was  in  the  morning.  And  herein  is  the 
full  justification  for  interpreting  the  doubtful  ren- 
dering of  Matthew's  account  to  harmonize  with  the 
other  three.  ^v.  *« 

The  first  clause  under  dispute  is,  **Now  late  on 
the  Sabbath  day"  (Matt.  28  :  1,  E.  V.).  The  com- 
mon version  renders  it,  *^In  the  end  of  the  Sabbath." 
Dr.  Clark  renders  it,  *^ After  the  end  of  the  week,'' 
and  says,  ^^This  is  the  translation  given  by  several 
eminent  critics :  and  in  this  way  the  word  otps  is  used 
by  the  most  eminent  Greek  writers."  He  then  gives 
a  number  of  examples. — See  Clarices  Commentaries, 

Mr.  Lewis  admits  that  o^j^s  may  mean  ** after"  in 
certain  constructions,  but  not  in  the  construction 
before  us.  But  in  the  examples  given  by  Clark  from 
eminent  Greek  writers,  we  have  exactly  similar  con- 
structions in  which  practically  no  other  meaning  i$ 
possible.  Hence  we  conclude  that  the  meaning 
*^ after"  is  at  least  permissible  in  the  present  case, 
which  is  all  that  is  necessary. 

The  second  clause  under  dispute  is,  **As  it  began 


148  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

to  dawn  toward  the  first  day  of  the  week/'  Here 
Mr.  Lewis  claims  that  the  word  translated  **dawn" 
could  properly  be  rendered  ^'draw  on,''  but  he  does 
not  deny  that  ^'dawn"  is  also  a  proper  rendering. 
Again  he  claims  that  the  *^ first  day  of  the  week" 
necessarily  began  at  sunset  of  the  Sabbath.  Thus  he 
would  have  the  passage  mean,  ^^As  the  Sabbath  be- 
gan to  draw  on  toward  sunset." 

The  Bible  throughout  uses  the  Avords  *^day"  and 
^^ night"  in  a  separate  sense,  as  well  as  the  word 
^^day"  in  a  twenty-four  hour  sense,  and  the  day- 
light sense  of  the  word  *^day"  was  as  commonly  rec- 
ognized in  Matthew's  time  as  now.  Hence  it  is  not 
improbable  that  he  used  it  here  in  this  common  nat- 
ural sense.  Alford  {Greek  Gospels)  says,  ''It  is 
best  to  interpret  a  doubtful  expression  in  unison 
with  other  testimonies,  and  to  suppose  that  here  both 
the  day  and  the  hreahing  of  the  day,  are  taken  in 
their  natural  sense,  not  in  their  Jewish  sense." 

Therefore, '  'After  the  Sabbath,  as  it  began  to  dawn 
toward  the  first  day  of  the  week,  etc.,  would  be  an 
entirely  proper  and  permissible  rendering.  And 
Matthew's  account  as  thus  rendered  agrees  perfectly 
with  the  other  three.  And  this  rendering  is  fully 
justified  in  the  fact  that  the  circumstantial  evidence, 
as  already  shown,  fully  identifies  the  four  accounts 
as  referring  to  the  same  visit ;  and,  as  regarding  the 
time  in  the  other  three  accounts,  there  is  no  dispute. 

In  regard  to  the  prophecy  of  "Three  days  and 
three  nights,"  in  Matt.  12  :  40,  Mr.  Lewis  says 
(p.  50),  "The  circumstances  forbid  all  indefiniteness 
of  expression."    Thus  he  argues  for  the  literal  ap- 


SATURDAY  RESURKECTION   THEORY  149 

plication  of  the  expression  ''Three  days  and  three 
nights/^  yet  in  his  application  he  completely  re- 
verses it,  and  makes  the  time  that  Christ  was  in  the 
grave  ''three  nights  and  three  days"  instead  of 
"three  days  and  three  nights.''  The  reversal  of  the 
prophecy  very  materially  changes  its  prophetic 
sense;  therefore  he  cannot  claim  that  it  makes  no 
difference,  when  it  does  make  a  difference. 

Three  nights  and  three  days  would  not  be  a  literal 
fulfillment  of  three  days  and  three  nights.  Mr. 
Lewis,  we  presume,  also  holds  the  sunset  to  sunset 
theory  making  "the  night  and  the  day"  the  God 
appointed  order  of  the  twenty-four  hour  day.  Then 
can  he  give  any  good  reason  why  the  prophecy  was 
"three  days  and  three  nights"  if  the  fact  was  the 
reverse?  To  fulfill  the  sign  of  Jonah  the  time  must 
correspond  in  both  cases.  If  "three  nights  and  three 
days"  was  the  fact  in  both  cases,  then  the  statement 
would  undoubtedly  correspond  to  the  fact,  not  to  the 
reverse  of  the  fact,  if  a  strictly  literal  application 
was  essential.  A  literal  application  must  put  the 
days  and  the  nights  in  the  order  mentioned.  The 
application  is  not  literal  unless  strictly  literal,  and 
if  not  strictly  literal,  then  Mr.  Lewis'  whole  argu- 
ment for  a  strictly  literal  application  fails.  The  ap- 
parent discrepancy  in  the  prophecy  of  "three  days 
and  three  nights"  is  more  easily  explained  than  is 
Mr.  Lewis'  reversal  of  the  prophecy. 

Albert  Barnes  in  his  notes  on  this  verse,  says,  "It 
was  a  maxim,  also,  among  the  Jews  in  computing 
time,  that  a  part  of  a  day  w^as  to  be  received  as 
the  whole.  Many  instances  of  this  kind  occur  in 
both   sacred   and  profane   history. — See   2   Chron. 


150  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

10  :  5,12;  Gen.  42  :  17,18.  Compare  Esther  4  :  16 
with  5   :  1.'' 

It  will  be  seen  from  these  references  that  ^^  three 
days'^  or  ^^ after  three  days"  mean  the  same  as 
^'on  the  third  day;"  that  is,  the  indefinite  part  of 
the  first  and  third  days  count  as  whole  days. 

In  John  2  :  19  Jesus  said,  *^  Destroy  this  temple 
and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up,"  which,  by  the 
key  furnished  in  Gen.  42  :  17,18  and  Esther  4  :  16, 
5  :  1,  would  mean  '^on  the  third  day."  In  Mark 
8  :  31,  He  said  that  he  would  *^be  killed  and  after 
three  days  rise  again,"  which  by  the  key  furnished 
in  2  Chron.  10  :  5,12,  would  mean  **on  the  third 
day."  InMatt.  16  :21;17  :23;Mark9  :31;10  :34; 
Luke  9  :  22 ;  18  :  33 ;  24  :  7,  He  said  that  he  would 
rise  ^  ^  the  third  day. ' '  We  have  here  nine  prophecies 
(including  John  2  :  19  and  Mark  8  :  31)  by  Christ 
Himself  that  He  would  rise  on  *^the  third  day." 

The  expression  ''the  third  day"  or  ^*on  the  third 
day"  is  inclusive  in  sense — including  the  three  days 
in  mind — and  necessarily  includes  the  day  on  which 
the  event  occurred  from  which  the  count  is  taken; 
for  this  day  is  necessarily  one  of  the  three  in  mind, 
and  thus  one  of  the  three  days  involved  in  the  count. 
This  inclusive  sense  of  the  expression  *Hhe  third 
day"  is  rendered  doubly  certain  here,  in  view  of  the 
well  authenticated  Jewish  inclusive  method  of 
counting  a  part  of  a  day  as  the  whole,  and  including 
the  days  from  which  and  to  which  the  count  refers. 
It  would  be  unreasonable  to  expect  to  arrive  at  a 
correct  understanding  of  a  Jewish  reckoning  by 
ignoring  the  Jewish  method  of  reckoning. 

Now;  if  Christ  was  buried  on  Wednesday,  then 


SATURDAY  EESUEKECTION  THEORY  151 

"Wednesady  must  be  counted  tlie  first  day,  Tliursday 
the  second,  Friday  the  tliird,  and  Saturday  the 
fourth.  Hence,  according  to  Mr.  Lewis'  theory, 
Christ  rose  on  the  fourth  day  contrary  to  His  oft 
repeated  prophecy  that  He  would  rise  ^Hhe  third 
day.'' 

The  expressions  ''after  three  days"  and  ''three 
days  and  three  nights"  are  practically  equivalent, 
and  the  Jewish  inclusive  method  of  reckoning  which 
furnishes  a  key  to  the  former,  also  furnishes  a  pos- 
sible key  to  the  latter ;  and  a  possible  key  is  all  that 
is  required,  in  view  of  the  necessity  of  harmoniz- 
ing the  prophecy  of  "three  days  and  three  nights" 
wath  the  other  nine  parallel  prophecies.  Christ 
could  not  remain  in  the  grave  three  whole  days  and 
nights  and  rise  on  "the  third  day." 

In  answer  to  Christ's  question,  "What  things?" 
(Luke  24  :  19),  the  disciples  answered,  "The  things 
concerning  Jesus  the  Nazarene. . .  .and  how  the  chief 
priests  and  our  rulers  delivered  him  up  to  be  con- 
demned to  death,  and  crucified  him Yea,  and  be- 
side all  this,  it  is  now  the  third  day  since  these 
things  came  to  pass"  (R.  V.).  This  was  then  on 
the  third  day  since  the  crucifixion,  for  the  words 
"these  things"  plainly  refer  to  the  things  just  men- 
tioned; but  if  Christ  was  crucified  on  Wednesday, 
then  it  was  the  fifth  day  since. 

Mr.  Lewis  makes  a  lame  attempt  to  evade  this  evi- 
dence. On  page  61,  he  says,  "Now  it  is  very  clear 
that  that  conversation  concerning  the  reported 
resurrection  must  have  included  a  discussion  of  the 
important  fact  that  after  all  else  had  occurred,  and 
Christ  was  buried,  a  guard  had  been  set  to  prevent 


152  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

liis  resurrection/^  On  page  62  lie  says,  *'The  obvi- 
ous meaning  of  Luke  24  :  21  is  this, '  The  time  is  now 
fully  up  since  the  final  effort  was  made  to  prevent 
a  resurrection,  and  this  morning  the  women  reported 
that  in  spite  of  all  efforts  to  the  contrary,  it  had 
actually  taken  place. '  ^ ' 

Where  Mr.  Lewis  gets  his  idea  that  the  guard  was 
set  to  prevent  the  resurrection,  we  do  not  know. 
According  to  Matt.  27  :  64,  it  was  set  to  prevent  the 
disciples  from  stealing  the  body  of  Christ  and  re- 
porting that  he  had  risen.  A  thing  that  they  had  no 
thought  of  doing;  and  hence  the  placing  of  the 
guard  was  a  matter  of  no  concern  to  the  disciples. 
The  revival  of  hope  in  the  reported  resurrection  of 
Jesus  can  only  be  set  over  against  the  gloom  occa- 
sioned by  His  death.  The  overshadowing  promi- 
nence of  these  two  thoughts  makes  it  impossible  for 
any  unimportant  detail  to  be  thought  of  in  the  same 
connection.  But,  according  to  Mr.  Lewis,  these  dis- 
ciples meant,  *^It  is  now  the  third  day  since  the 
placing  of  the  guard,"  thus  making  the  placing  of 
the  guard  the  most  prominent  thought  in  their 
minds. 

It  is  not  even  probable  that  the  disciples  knew  of 
the  placing  of  the  guard,  for  the  guard  was  doubt- 
less placed  secretly  to  entrap  the  disciples  if  they 
should  attempt  to  steal  the  body  of  Jesus.  The 
priests  certainly  did  not  publish  the  fact  of  setting 
the  guard.  Besides,  it  was  placed  on  the  Sabbath, 
and  the  disciples  would  not  likely  know  of  it  till 
they  went  to  the  tomb ;  and  we  find  the  women  won- 
dering on  their  way  to  the  tomb,  *  ^  Who  shall  roll  us 
away  the  stone  T*  showing  that  this  was  the  only  dif- 


SATURDAY  RESUERECTION  THEOEY        153 

ficulty  of  which  they  were  aware.  But  if  they  had 
known  of  the  sealing  of  the  stone  and  placing  of  the 
guard,  they  would  have  recognized  a  greater  obstacle 
than  the  roiling  away  of  the  stone. 

Mr.  Lewis  says  (page  60),  ^'The  guard  was  set  to 
cover  a  time  three  days  from  the  entombment,''  and 
that  the  women  (on  their  first  visit)  ^^came  to  the 
tomb  Avith  the  evident  design  of  being  present  the 
moment  the  guard  should  be  removed.''  Mr.  Lewis 
here  assumes  that  the  guard  was  set  to  cover  exactly 
three  days  from  the  entombment,  and  that  the 
women  were  aware  of  this  fact.  There  is  certainly 
not  the  slightest  evidence  to  support  this  assump- 
tion. 

We  see  in  Matt.  27  :  63,64  that  the  guard  was  set 
on  account  of  Christ's  prophecy  that  he  would  rise 
*' after  three  days,"  and  to  prevent  the  disciples 
from  stealing  the  body  by  night,  (for  evidently 
they  would  not  attempt  to  steal  it  by  day)  and  re- 
porting that  He  had  risen.  Now  Mr.  Lewis  will 
insist  on  the  full  ^Hhree  days  and  three  nights" 
measure  of  the  prophecy,  and  that  the  resurrection 
was  to  be  ^^ after."  Then  the  night  *^ after"  would 
be  when  the  disciples  would  make  at  least  their  final 
(supposed)  attempt  to  steal  the  body,  and  the  guard 
would  certainly  not  be  removed  before  the  morning. 

Matthew  28  gives  the  account  of  the  rolling  back 
.of  the  stone  and  the  dismissal  of  the  guard  by  the 
angel,  and  the  visit  of  the  women.  Now  if  this  was 
their  first  visit  and  they  were  thus  made  aware  of 
the  removal  of  the  guard,  they  were  also  aware  of 
the  Eesurrection  and  the  rolling  away  of  the  stone 
so  we  see  that  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence 


154  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

that  the  women  knew  of  the  guard,  but  conclusive 
evidence  to  the  contrary  in  the  evident  fact  that  the 
rolling  away  of  the  stone  was  the  only  obstacle  they 
were  aware  of.  Nor  is  it  any  more  likely  that  any 
of  the  other  disciples  knew  of  the  gTiard. 

Even  with  the  guard  supposition,  Mr.  Lewis  must 
ignore  the  Jewish  inclusive  method  of  reckoning. 
He  says  that  the  guard  was  placed  on  Thursday,  and 
that  Friday  was  the  first  day  since  the  placing  of  the 
guard,  and  hence  Sunday  was  the  third  day  since; 
but,  according  to  the  Jewish  inclusive  method,  the 
day  on  which  the  guard  was  placed  v^ould  be  the  first, 
and  if  this  was  Thursday,  then  Sunday  would  be  the 
fourth  day  since. 

Finally,  the  guard  supposition  must  be  wholly  as- 
sumed without  the  slightest  warrant,  for  the  guard 
is  not  here  mentioned,  nor  is  the  slightest  reference 
made  to  it  anywhere  in  Luke's  gospel.  This  magni- 
fied importance  of  the  guard  is  evidently  the  best 
evasion  that  can  be  made,  which  fact  only  exposes 
the  weakness  of  the  position  it  was  meant  to  sustain. 

Christ  must  necessarily  fulfil  to  the  letter  every 
type  of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law.  The  ^^  paschal 
lamb''  was  a  type  of  Christ,  who  was  the  ^'Lamb 
slain  from  the  foundation  of  the  world. ' '  The  sheaf 
of  firstfruits,  waved  as  a  wave  offering,  was  a  type 
of  Christ,  who  in  His  resurrection  became  the  *  ^  first- 
fruits  of  them  that  slept."  The  paschal  lamb  was 
always  slain  on  the  day  before  the  Passover  Sabbath, 
and  the  sheaf  of  firstfruits  was  waved  as  a  wave 
offering  on  the  day  after  the  Passover  Sabbath.; 
Hence  Christ's  death  must  be  on  the  day  before  th^ 
■  Passover  Sabbath,  and  His  resurrection  on  the  day* , 


SATURDAY  RESURRECTION  THEORY  155 

after  tlie  Passover  Sabbath  in  order  to  fulfil  botli 
types. 

All  of  Christ's  prophecies,  and  also  the  types 
referring  to  Him,  must  harmonize ;  and  it  is  only  by 
harmonizing  them  that  we  can  hope  to  arrive  at  the 
truth — not  by  arbitrarily  interpreting  one  to  the  con- 
tradiction of  the  others. 

Mr.  Lewis,  in  his  arbitrary  interpretation  of  the 
^^ three  days  and  three  nights,''  totally  ignores  both 
the  Jewish  method  of  reckoning  (which  furnishes  a 
possible  solution  of  the  apparent  discrepancy)  and 
the  types  which  it  was  necessary  for  Christ  to  fulfil. 

A  possible  solution  of  the  apparent  discrepancy 
involved  in  the  prophecy  of  ^^  three  days  and  three 
nights"  is  all  that  is  required  in  view  of  the  positive 
evidence  regarding  the  time  that  Christ's  body  lay; 
in  the  grave. 

It  may  be  said  to  the  credit  of  the  Adventists  that 
they  make  no  attempt  to  sustain  Mr.  Lewis'  theory, 
showing  that  they  do  not  consider  it  worthy  of  sup- 
port. 

Mr.  Lewis  says,  on  page  57,  **  About  1865,  the 
writer  published  the  proposition  that  Christ's  en- 
tombment occurred  on  the  evening  of  the  fourth  day 
of  the  week  and  his  resurrection  before  the  close  of 
the  Sabbath,  and  not  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week. 
The  proposition  was  met  with  a  storm  of  criticism 
by  some,  and  with  careful  consideration  by  others. 
This  interpretation  has  gained  ground  steadily  until 
the  highest  authorities  in  New  Testament  criticism 
now  support  it.  The  revisers  of  the  New  Testament 
have  given  it  absolute  sanction,  by  translating  as 
above.'' 


156  feABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Here  Mr.  Lewis  plainly  assumes  that  tlie  revisers 
of  the  New  Testament  fully  endorse  his  theory, 
merely  because  they  translated  the  first  clause  of 
Matt.  2S  :  1  to  read,  ''Now  late  on  the  Sabbath  day.'' 
They  also  translated  the  second  clause  to  read,  '^As 
it  began  to  dawn  toward  the  first  day  of  the  week;" 
and  the  second  clause  offsets  the  first,  so  that  the 
entire  translation  is  an  endorsement  of  no  theory. 
There  is  just  as  much  ground  for  changing  the  word 
^ ' late ' '  to  ' ' after ' '  as  for  changing  the  word  ' ' dawn' ' 
to  ''draw  on." 

The  fact  that  the  translators  gave  the  most  char- 
acteristic sense  of  the  original  word  in  each  case  is 
no  proof  that  no  other  translation  is  permissible,  and 
hence  is  no  proof  that  they  endorse  Mr.  Lewis' 
theory.  This  arbitrary  assumption  of  the  revisers' 
endorsement  furnishes  a  fair  basis  for  judging  of 
Mr.  Levvds'  other  statement,  that  "the  highest  auth- 
orities in  New  Testament  criticism  now  support" 
his  theory. 

Dr.  Lewis'  theory  has  been  recently  revived  in  a 
small  pamphlet  entitled  "Three  Days  and  Three 
Nights:  or  The  Greatest  Puzzle  of  Christendom 
Solved  at  Last,"  by  Lt.-Col  T.  W.  Eichardson,  Edi- 
tor of  The  Sahhath  Observer,  the  official  organ  of 
the  Seventh-day  Baptists  in  England. 

Mr.  Eichardson 's  theory  is  identical  with  that  of 
Mr.  Le"wis',  first  published,  as  Mr.  Lewis  states, 
about  1865.  But  we  infer  from  the  title  of  Mr.  Eich- 
ardson's  pamphlet,  that  he  claims  to  be  the  origi- 
nator of  the  theory,  which  implies  that  he  was  un- 
aware of  Mr.  Lewis'  claim.    This  furnishes  a  very 


SATURDAY  RESURRECTION  THEORY  157 

practical  comment  on  Mr.  Lewis'   statement  that 
his  theory  *4ias  gained  gronrd  steadily  until,''  etc. 
It  is  not  necessary  here  to  refer  to  the  arguments 
already  answered  in  answering  Mr.  Lewis. 

In  regard  to  the  word  ^'dawn,"  Mr.  Richardson 
says  (page  12),  *' Though  it  frequently  means  about 
sunrise,  its  real  meaning  is  a  ^lighting  up,'  and  is 
applicable  to  the  intelligence  as  well  as  to  the  sun  or 
lamps."  Very  well,  but  when  it  is  used  in  connection 
with  the  word  ^^day,"  as  in  Matt.  28  :  1,  it  must 
have  reference  to  the  ^^ lighting  up"  of  the  day,  not 
to  the  intelligence,  or  even  to  lamps.  And  this 
'lighting  up"  or  dawning  ^^ toward  the  first  day  of 
the  week"  shows  that  the  word  *^day"  is  here  used 
in  its  daylight  sense,  not  in  its  twenty-four  hour 
sense. 

To  assume,  as  Mr.  Richardson  does,  that  the  word 
**day"  here  necessarily  means  ^^from  sunset  to  sun- 
set" is  to  assume  that  it  is  never  otherwise  used  in 
the  Bible.  Whereas,  the  daylight  sense  of  the  word, 
as  separate  and  distinct  from  the  night  sense,  is  used 
all  through  the  Bible,  just  as  it  is  used  to-day. 

Again  (p.  15),  *^Now  when  Jesus  was  risen  early 
the  first  day  of  the  week.  He  appeared  first  to  Mary 
Magdalene"  (Mark  16  :  9).  By  placing  the  comma 
after  *^ risen,"  instead  of  after  '^week,"  Mr.  Rich- 
ardson is  able  to  evade  the  direct  statement  that 
Jesus  rose  on  the  first  day  of  the  week.  He  says  also 
(p.  17),  that  this  **was  not  His  first  appearance,  but 
His  first  '^ First-day  appearance,"  that  He  first 
appeared  to  the  two  Mary's  on  the  Sabbath  and  they 
'* worshipped  him,"  that  the  next  morning  He  ap- 
peared again  to  Mary  Magdalene. 


158  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

In  John  20  :  15,  we  find  that  when  Jesus  met  Mary 
Magdalene,  she  supposed  Him  to  be  the  gardener 
and  said,  ^'Sir,  if  thou  have  borne  him  hence,  tell 
me  where  thou  hast  laid  him,  and  I  will  take  him 
away."  Then  He  had  not  met  her  before,  for  she 
still  supposed  Him  to  be  dead,  as  her  words  plainly 
show.  However,  Mr.  Richardson  gets  around  this 
difficulty  by  supposing  that  she  was  in  a  dazed  con- 
dition; yet  he  admits  that  she  ^'worshiped  Him'' 
on  the  first  occasion,  which  shows  that  she  was  not 
too  dazed  to  recognize  Him.  Mr.  Lewis  got  around 
the  difficulty  by  supposing  that  Matthew's  account 
changed  from  the  first  to  the  second  visit  between 
verses  8  and  9.  If  such  supposing  be  taken  for 
proof,  then  supposing  will  prove  anything. 

Again  Mr.  Richardson  says  (page  17),  ^^Late  on 
the  Sabbath  the  two  Mary's  witnessed  the  angel  roll 
back  the  stone,  which  act  revealed  an  empty  sepul- 
chre. ' '  Then  why  did  they  wonder  the  next  morning 
who  would  roll  away  the  stone?  (Mark  16   :  3.) 

On  page  13,  he  says,  ^^We  can  further  prove  that 
the  Passover  Sabbath  did  not  fall  on  the  weekly  Sab- 
bath, and  moreover,  that  Jesus  was  Hhree  days  and 
three  nights  in  the  grave,  without  reference  to  Matt. 
12  :  40.'  "  Then  he  argues  that,  according  to  Mark 
16  :  1,  the  women  bought  the  spices  after  the  Sab- 
bath, and  according  to  Luke  23  :  56,  they  bought 
the  spices  before  the  Sabbath,  and  hence,  that  the 
Sabbath  before  they  bought  the  spices  must  have 
been  the  Passover  Sabbath,  and  the  Sabbath  after 
they  bought  the  spices  was  the  weekly  Sabbath. 

The  statement  in  regard  to  buying  the  spices,  in 
Mark  16  : 1,  may  be  taken  parenthetically.    And  that 


SATUKDAY  RESUKKECTION  THEOKY        159 

this  was  the  judgment  of  the  interpreters  of  the 
common  version  is  shown  in  the  words  ^'had 
bought.''  (And  this  is  the  version  from  which  Mr. 
Eichardson  quotes.)  The  revised  version  leaves 
it  equally  capable  of  either  rendering.  Now  Mr. 
Richardson  can  hardly  enter  an  objection  here,  since 
he  changed  the  comma  in  the  9th  verse  of  the  same 
chapter  (to  suit  his  theory)  against  the  judgment 
of  the  interpreters  of  both  the  common  and  the 
revised  versions. 

Mark  16  :  1,2  reads  as  follows:  **And  when  the 
Sabbath  was  past,  (Mary  Magdalene,  and  Mary  the 
mother  of  James,  and  Salome,  had  bought  sweet 
spices  that  they  might  come  and  anoint  him.)  And 
very  early  in  the  morning  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
they  came  unto  the  sepulchre  at  the  rising  of  the 
sun.''  We  insert  the  parenthesis  merely  to  empha- 
size the  parenthetical  sense.  If  Mark  had  here 
meant  the  Passover  Sabbath,  he  would  certainly 
have  so  designated  it,  for  he  could  not  fail  to  know 
that  his  readers  would  understand  him  to  mean  the 
weekly  Sabbath  unless  he  otherwise  designated  it. 
For  **the  Sabbath"  always  referred  to  the  weekly 
Sabbath  unless  otherwise  designated. 

On  page  4,  Mr.  Eichardson  says,  *^The  Savior 
having  given  those  words  (Hhree  days  and  three 
nights')  as  the  ^sigii'  or  proof  of  His  Messiahship, 
He  would  be  proved  untruthful,  and  therefore  a 
*  sinner,'  if  the  sign  failed,  and  it  is  manifest  if  He 
were  a  sinner  our  hope  of  salvation  and  eternal 
glory  through  Him  must  be  worthless,  and  all  preach- 
ing of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ  v^asted  energy  and^ 


160  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

consummate  folly.  ^ '  According  to  the  sense  of  this 
statement,  Christ  would  be  proved  a  ^* sinner/'  in 
spite  of  the  fact  of  the  Eesurrection,  if  He  did  not 
fulfill  the  "sign''  according  to  Mr.  Eichardson's 
interpretation  of  it. 

The  proof  of  Christ's  Messiahship  is  in  the  fact 
of  the  Resurrection,  not  in  the  "sign"  of  "three 
days  and  three  nights."  We  must  harmonize  the 
"sign"  with  the  fact,  not  the  fact  with  the  "sign." 
If  our  interpretation  of  the  "sign"  does  not  har- 
monize with  the  factyihat  does  not  disprove  the  fact^ 
but  only  disproves  our  interpretation  of  the  "sign." 

0n  this  same  point  Mr.  Lewis  says  (page  59  of  his 
book),  "Since  Christ  gave  the  length  of  time  he 
should  lie  in  the  grave  as  a  sign  of  his  Messiahship, 
any  failure  in  the  fulfilment  of  that  sign  would  have 
been  noted  and  published  by  his  enemies."  But 
Mr.  Lewis  fails  to  observe  that  his  enemies  could 
not  do  this  without  at  the  same  time  acknowledging 
the  fact  of  the  Resurrection, — the  real  proof  of 
Christ's  Messiahship, — the  very  point  they  sought 
to  deny  (Matt.  28  :  11-13). 

We  see  from  these  two  statements  that  Messrs. 
Lewis  and  Richardson  base  their  arguments,  not  on 
the  fact  of  the  Resurrection,  but  on  the  sign  of  the 
"three  days  and  three  nights."  This  they  lay  down 
as  the  infallible  basis  with  which  all  else  must  be 
made  to  harmonize.  They  should  at  least  begin  by 
proving  their  basis,  but  they  merely  take  for 
granted  as  beyond  question,  that  the  full  measure  of 
"three  days  and  three  nights"  is  the  original  sense 
in  which  it  was  used,  while  in  fact,  as  we  have 
shown,  the  original  sense  of  the  expression,  accord- 


SATUKDAY  RESUERECTION   THEORY  161 

ing  to  the  Jewish  inclusive  method  of  reckoning, 
does  not  necessarily  contradict  the  generally  ac- 
cepted theory  that  Christ  remained  in  the  grave 
from  Friday  evening  to  Sunday  morning. 

Here  then  is  no  necessary  contradiction;  but  we 
have  certainly  pointed  out  a  few  irreconcilable  con- 
tradictions in  Messrs.  Lewis'  and  Richardson's  at- 
tempts to  make  the  Resurrection  accounts  harmonize 
with  their  theory  of  the  ^' three  days  and  three 
nights."  The  irreconcilable  contradictions  involved 
in  attempting  to  prove  a  theory  necessarily  prove 
the  counter  theory,  which,  in  this  case,  is  the  Friday 
evening  to  Sunday  morning  theory;  for  one  or  the 
other  theory  must  be  true. 

The  direct  and  circumstantial  evidence  involved 
in  the  four  accounts  of  the  Resurrection,  and  the 
seven  definite  prophecies  that  He  would  rise  on  ^Hhe 
third  day,"  together  with  the  types  which  must  be 
fulfilled  in  Christ  as  the  great '  *  Paschal  Lamb ' '  and 
^^Firstfruits  of  them  that  slept,"  determine  the 
time  between  Christ's  death  and  resurrection.  This 
is  the  positive  evidence.  The  expressions  ^Hhree 
days  and  three  nights"  and  ^^late  on  the  Sabbath 
day"  are,  at  best,  uncertain  as  to  their  original 
sense.  This  positive  evidence  and  uncertain  evi- 
dence must  agree  in  the  time  that  Christ  lay  in  the 
grave. 

Now  is  the  sense  of  the  positive  evidence  to  be 
determined  by  the  uncertain  evidence?  or,  is  the 
sense  of  the  uncertain  evidence  to  be  determined  by 
the  positive  evidence? 

Mr,  Lewis  makes  out  two  visits  of  the  women  to 


162  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

the  tomb,  but  Mr.  Eicliardson  malies  ont  three  visits 
from  the  apparent  discrepancies  in  regard  to  the 
time  and  to  the  number  of  women  as  given  in  the 
different  accounts. 

The  four  accounts  of  the  Eesurrection  were  writ- 
ten a  number  of  years  after  the  event,  and  were 
based  on  the  memory  of  eye  witnesses.  The  all- 
absorbing  fact  of  the  Resurrection  would  naturally 
so  absorb  the  attention  that  unimportant  details 
would  be  almost  unnoticed  and  leave  but  little  im- 
pression on  the  memory. 

It  is  well  understood  by  lawyers,  that  it  is  almost 
impossible  for  even  the  most  reliable  witnesses  in 
court  to  agree  in  every  small  detail.  The  apparent 
discrepancies  in  the  details  of  the  different  resur- 
rection accounts  is  the  real  proof  of  their  genuine- 
ness and  of  the  honesty  of  the  writers.  The  slighest 
evidence  that  the  accounts  v/ere  made  up  to  harmon- 
ize would  weaken  the  force  of  their  testimony.  Any 
more  harmony  of  detail  would  only  mean  less  weight 
of  evidence.  Infidels  may  point  to  these  discrep- 
ancies of  detail,  but  if  it  were  not  for  these  discrep- 
ancies, then  they  would  point  to  the  harmony  as 
proof  that  the  accounts  were  preconcerted  fabrica- 
tions. They  point  to  the  discrepancies  because  they 
are  looking  for  contradictions,  not  for  evidence. 
\  The  unmistakable  note  of  genuineness  and  truth- 
fulness ringing  through  the  testimony  of  each  writer 
(including  Paul)  together  with  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath  leading  back  in  unbroken  line  to  the  event  it- 
self, makes  the  Eesurrection  the  best  attested  fact 
in  history.  To  deny  the  Eesurrection  doctrine  is  to 
deny  the  honesty  and  truthfulness  of  the  inspired 


SATUKDAY   EESUEKECTIOISr   THEORY  163 

writers.  If  we  reject  tlieir  testimony  in  regard  to 
the  Eesurrection,  we  cannot  consistently  accept 
their  testimony  in  anything. 

John's  Gospel  was  supposed  to  have  been  written 
about  twenty  or  thirty  years  after  the  other  three. 
It  was  written  with  a  full  knoAvledge  of  the  other 
three,  not  to  corroborate  them,  but  to  supplement 
them  by  relating  additional  facts  and  additional 
teachings  of  Christ.  He  carefully  avoids  repeating 
what  the  others  have  written,  and  only  repeats  when 
unavoidable.  Hence,  in  accordance  with  the  supple- 
mental character  of  John's  Gospel,  his  resurrection 
account  must  be  regarded  as  supplemental  to  the 
other  accounts.  Knowing  that  his  readers  were 
familiar  with  the  other  accounts,  and  that  repeti- 
tion was  unnecessary,  he  merely  recorded  additional 
incidents  not  recorded  by  the  others.  This  fully 
explains  why  he  mentions  only  the  incident  concern- 
ing Mary  Magdalene  and  does  not  mention  the  other 
women.  In  supplementing  the  other  accounts  he 
tacitly  recognizes  and  indorses  them.  Thus  John's 
account  of  the  Eesurrection  is  in  full  harmony  with 
the  other  accounts. 

Mary  Magdalene's  name  stands  first  in  each  ac- 
count. This  alone  tends  to  unify  the  accounts.  The 
two  Mary's  are  mentioned  by  Matthew,  Mark  and 
Luke.  This  further  tends  to  unify  the  three  ac- 
counts. Mark  also  mentions  Salome ;  and  Luke  men- 
tions Joanna,  and  also  that  there  were  other  women. 
John  implies  also  that  there  were  other  women 
in  the  word  ^^we;"  for  Mary  thus  includes  others 
when  she  said,  '^We  know  not  where  they  have 
laid  Him"  (John  20  :  2).  The  fact  that  Matthew  and 


164  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Mark  do  not  mention  other  women  does  not  prove, 
nor  even  necessarily  imply,  that  there  were  not 
other  w^omen.  Each  would  mention  the  names  of 
those  women  from  whom  he  gathered  his  evidence; 
and  if  the  others  added  nothing  to  his  testimony 
there  was  no  reason  Avhy  he  should  mention  them. 
Thus  in  regard  to  the  number  of  women  there  is  no 
real  discrepancy. 

In  regard  to  the  time  of  the  event,  Matthew  says, 
*^As  it  began  to  dawn  toward  the  first  day  of  the 
week;''  Mark  says,  *^When  the  sun  was  risen;" 
Luke  says,  ^'At  early  dawn;"  John  says,  ^^A^Hiile  it 
was  yet  dark."  These  statements  were  necessarily 
based  on  the  vague  memories  of  the  women  years 
after  the  event.  In  view  of  their  grief,  and  the  one 
all-absorbing  thought  in  their  minds  on  their  way  to 
the  tomb,  and  the  confusion  and  excitement  that  fol- 
lowed, any  impression  as  to  the  exact  time  would  be 
vague  at  best.  The  chief  actors  in  the  battle  of 
Waterloo  differ  by  a  number  of  hours  as  to  the  time 
when  the  battle  began,  but  no  one  can  deny  that  they 
all  give  account  of  the  same  battle. 

We  may  naturally  suppose  that  the  women  started 
to  the  tomb  as  soon  as  it  began  to  get  light,  ^^  while 
it  was  yet  dark,"  and  that  when  they  reached  the 
tomb,  a  distance  of  about  half  a  mile,  ^'the  sun  was 
risen."  Or  even  if  it  was  yet  dark  when  they  first 
reached  the  tomb,  if  they  waited  till  Mary  ran  and 
brought  Peter  and  John  before  they  ventured  to  go 
into  the  tomb,  then  it  was  after  sunrise  when  they 
entered  the  tomb.  Latham  {The  Risen  Master ^  page 
225)  says,  "Twilight  in  that  latitude  does  not  last 
for  more  than  a  quarter  of  an  hour."    Therefore 


SATURDAY  EESUKRECTION  THEORY  165 

the  vague  impressions  that  lingered  in  the  memories 
of  the  different  women  might  easily  range  from  dark 
to  sunrise. 

In  regard  to  the  angels,  Matthew  and  Mark  speak 
of  one,  Luke  and  John  speak  of  two ;  Mark  and  John 
speak  of  the  angel  or  angels  as  sitting,  Luke  speaks 
of  them  as  standing. 

Matthew  says,  ^' There  was  a  great  earthquake; 
for  an  angel  of  the  Lord  descended  from  heaven,  and 
came  and  rolled  away  the  stone,  and  sat  upon  it  .  .  . 
and  for  fear  of  him  the  watchers  did  quake,  and 
became  as  dead  men.''  This  was  undoubtedly  when 
Christ  arose,  and  was  sometime  before  the  women 
came,  for  then  Christ  was  already  risen. 

This  information  Matthew  (who  alone  mentions 
the  guard)  must  have  got  from  the  reports  of  the 
guard,  and  not  from  the  women.  He  evidently  sup- 
poses, however,  that  it  was  the  same  angel  that  spoke 
to  the  women.  It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that 
the  angel  was  still  sitting  on  the  stone,  nor  that  he 
was  not  inside  the  sepulchre,  according  to  the  other 
three  writers,  when  he  spoke  to  the  women;  for 
Matthew  merely  mentions  the  fact  that  he  spoke  to 
the  women.  Moreover,  the  angel's  words,  ^'Come, 
see  the  place  where  the  Lord  lay"  implies  that  the 
occurrence  took  place  inside  the  sepulchre. 

Luke  and  John  mention  two  angels,  and  that  they 
spoke ;  but  we  would  naturally  understand,  however, 
that  one  spoke  for  both,  not  that  they  both  spoke  at 
the  same  time,  or  that  one  spoke  the  same  words 
after  the  other.  Thus  the  attention  of  the  women 
would  naturally  be  directed  to  the  one  who  spoke. 
Again,  the  angels  were  not  together,  but  one  at  the 


166  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

head  and  the  other  at  the  feet  ''where  the  body  of 
Jesus  had  lain.''  Mark  says  that  the  angel  was 
*' sitting  on  the  right  side."  This  may  be  true,  and 
yet  at  or  near  the  head. 

Now  the  fact  that  the  angels  were  somewhat  apart 
makes  it  all  the  more  probable  that  some  of  the 
women  had  their  attention  wholly  absorbed  by  the 
angel  who  spoke,  and  thus  some  of  the  women  would 
have  the  impression  on  their  memories  of  one  angel 
and  others  of  two.  When  the  women  went  into 
the  sepulchre  the  angels  were  sitting,  according  to 
Mark.  When  the  angel  spoke,  they  probably  rose 
and  stood,  according  to  Luke.  And  when  Mary  after- 
[wards  stooped  and  looked  into  the  tomb  they  were 
;again  sitting,  according  to  John.  Thus  there  is  no 
necessary  discrepencey  in  regard  to  the  angels. 

Lastly,  in  regard  to  the  two  appearances  of  Jesus 
to  the  women,  Mark  16  :  9  says  that  *'he  appeared 
first  to  Mary  Magdalene."  This  determines  the 
order  of  the  appearances.  John  20  :  14-16  gives 
the  account  of  this  first  appearing,  and  Matt.  28  :  9,10 
gives  the  account  of  the  second  appearing.  The  har- 
monizing of  these  two  appearances  has  been  the 
chief  point  of  difficulty. 

When  the  women  came  near  enough  to  the  tomb 
to  see  that  the  stone  was  rolled  away,  they  would 
naturally  be  filled  with  a  sort  of  uncanny  fear 
.(especially  as  it  was  early),  neither  could  they  know 
that  persons  were  not  even  then  in  the  tomb.  JSFow 
if  we  can  determine  w^hat  women  would  most  nat- 
urally do  under  the  circumstances,  we  can  be  rea- 
sonably certain  what  they  did  do.  The  common  sup- 
position, that  they  at  once  entered  the  tomb,  is  cer- 
tainly the  most  unnatural  supposition  possible. 


SATUKDAY  EESUKRECTION  THEOEY  167 

We  tliink  tliat  the  most  natural  supposition  would 
be  that  they  would  send  one  of  their  number  in  great 
haste  after  some  of  the  disciples,  and  the  rest  would 
conceal  themselves  where  they  could  watch,  and  then 
wait  till  the  disciples  came.  So  we  find  that  Mary 
Magdalene  ran  to  tell  Peter  and  John,  ''and  they 
ran  both  together, ''  and  John  outran  Peter  "and 
came  first  to  the  tomb;'^  but  even  he  seemed  to  be 
afraid  to  enter  the  tomb  till  after  Peter  had  en- 
tered. Thus  it  is  probable  that  Peter  and  John  were 
the  first  to  enter  the  tomb  after  Jesus  was  risen.  It 
would  take  them  but  a  moment  to  satisfy  them- 
selves that  the  body  of  Jesus  was  not  there  and  it  is 
probable  that  they  remained  in  the  tomb  but  a  very 
short  time. 

:  Now  when  the  women  were  told  that  the  body  of 
Jesus  was  gone,  but  that  the  linen  cloths  were  still 
lying,  their  natural  curiosity,  emboldened  by  the 
example  of  Peter  and  John,  would  lead  them  to  enter 
the  tomb,  at  which  time  the  angels  appeared  to 
them.  They  were  filled  '^with  fear  and  great  joy 
and  ran  to  bring  the  disciples  word." 

All  this  naturally  occupied  but  a  few  moments, 
and  Mary,  not  able  to  keep  up  with  Peter  and  John 
as  they  ran,  had  not  yet  come  to  the  tomb,  but  doubt- 
less met  Peter  and  John  on  their  return,  who  told 
her  what  they  had  discovered.  In  the  meantime  the 
other  women,  not  knowing  the  way  that  Peter  and 
John  had  gone,  left  apparently  by  some  other  way, 
as  it  does  not  appear  that  they  overtook  Peter  and 
John  or  met  Mary.  Mary  then  came  weeping  to  the 
tomb  expecting  to  find  the  other  women  there ;  and 
^s  she  stood  without  the  tomb  weeping  she  stooped 


168  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

and  looked  in  and  saw  the  two  angels  sitting,  wlio 
also  spoke  to  her,  then  as  she  turned  Jesus  met  her 
and  revealed  Himself  to  her.  And  shortly  after 
this  He  could  have  appeared  to  the  other  vromen, 
who  as  yet  had  not  gone  far. 

It  is  not  even  necessary  to  assume  that  the  other 
women  waited  till  Peter  and  John  came,  but  it  is 
only  reasonable  to  suppose  that  they  w^aited  at  least 
till  they  were  assured  that  no  persons  were  in  the 
tomb,  and  even  then  that  it  would  be  some  time  be- 
fore their  anxiety  and  impatience  would  overcome 
their  fear  sufficiently  for  them  to  enter  the  tomb. 
From  this  view  they  probably  left  but  a  short  time 
before  Peter  and  John  came,  and  Mary  may  not  have 
been  far  behind,  and  thus  the  comparative  time  of 
Christ's  two  appearances  would  not  be  materially 
changed. 

If  it  be  objected  that  Peter  and  John  did  not  see 
the  angels  who  appeared  to  the  women,  it  may  be 
observed  that  this  is  only  in  harmony  with  John's 
own  account,  which  clearly  shows  that  Mary  saw 
the  angels  after  Peter  and  John  had  left  the  tomb. 

The  message  which  the  angels  gave  to  the  women 
to  tell  the  disciples,  and  which  Jesus  also  repeated 
when  He  met  them,  was  that  He  was  risen.  This 
even  Peter  and  John  were  not  as  yet  fully  assured  of. 

Hence,  we  see  that  there  is  no  real  or  necessary 
discrepency  even  in  the  details  of  the  different  re- 
surrection accounts,  and  that  the  apparent  discrep- 
encies  are  but  the  mark  of  individuality  which  stamps 
each  account  as  genuine. 

The  July,  1912,  number  of  The  Sahhath  Ohserver, 


SATURDAY  KESUEKECTION  THEOiiY  169 

edited  by  Mr.  Eieliardson,  has  an  article  on  **Tlie 
Crucifixion  Date, "  by  A.  G.  Marks,  in  which  he  says, 
**The  early  Christians  undoubtedly  considered  that 
the  date  of  the  Lord's  Crucifixion  was  the  14th  day 
of  the  month  Nison.  From  various  sources  we  also 
find  that  it  was  in  the  year  A.  D.  31.  The  14th  Nison 
in  A.  D.  31  fell  on  Wednesday  April  25th." 

For  his  proof  that  April  25th,  A.  D.  31,  was  on 
Wednesday,  he  refers  to  the  astronomical  tables 
of  Wurm,  as  cited  by  Wieseler  in  his  Synopsis  of  the 
Four  Gospels.  For  his  proof  of  the  year  A.  D.  31, 
he  refers  to  the  Acts  of  Pilate  and  to  the  Fasti 
Idatiani,  Then  he  cites  three  early  writers,  to  the 
effect  that  March  25th  was  widely  observed  as  the 
date  of  the  Crucifixion. 

In  conclusion  he  says,  ^^  Nison  14th,  Passover  day 
— the  day  that  Christ  was  crucified,  falls  variously 
between  March  25th  and  April  25th." 

All  this  we  will  pass  over  without  comment.  We 
now  come  to  his  argument,  that  the  14th  of  Nison 
in  A.  D.  31,  fell  on  April  25th  (Wednesday).  He 
says,  *^Now  the  year  31  was  an  intercalary  one, 
viz.,  one  in  which  an  extra  month  was  added  to  the 
year,  according  to  the  Jewish  Calendar.  This  hap- 
pened every  three  years.  Had  this  year  been  an 
ordinary  one,  Passover  time  would  have  fallen  a 
month  earlier,  and  the  14th  Nison,  consequently, 
on  March  25th,  instead  of  April  25th,  in  which  case 
it  would  not  have  fallen  on  a  Wednesday." 

Where  Mr.  Marks  gets  his  authority  for  this  state- 
ment, he  does  not  say;  and  it  involves  several  as- 
sertions that  call  for  proof.  However,  we  will  pass 
these  by,  as  we  only  wish  to  show  the  falsity  of  his 
argument  as  based  on  his  own  assertions. 


170  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

He  plainly  assumes  that  in  ordinary  years  the 
14th  of  Nison  was  on  March  25th,  but  every  three 
years  it  was  advanced  to  April  25th,  by  the  addition 
of  the  intercalary  month.  He  evidently  supposes 
that  the  intercalary  month  advanced  the  calendar 
one  month;  but  this  (instead  of  adding  an  inter- 
calary month)  would  be  merely  rotating  the  calen- 
dar by  advancing  it  one  month  every  three  years, 
and  thus  rotating  it  clear  around  every  thirty-six 
years. 

The  intercalary  month  never  took  the  place  or 
name  of  any  regular  month  (it  would  not  be  inter- 
calary if  it  did),  but  was  added  as  an  extra  month 
at  the  end  of  the  year  whenever  the  lunar  year  fell 
about  one  month  behind  the  solar  year.  Thus  the 
intercalary  month  never  advanced  any  date  beyond 
its  correct  position,  but  only  brought  it  up  to  its 
correct  position  after  it  had  fallen  behind. 

Mr.  Marks  says  that  the  intercalary  month  was 
added  every  three  years,  which  shows  that  he  sup- 
poses the  Jewish  calendar  to  be  lunar;  for  only  the 
lunar  calendar  involves  an  intercalary  month  every 
three  years.  We  have  discussed  the  Jewish  calen- 
dar in  Chapter  IV,  but  in  order  to  meet  Mr.  Marks 
on  his  own  ground,  we  will  in  the  present  argument 
assume  that  the  Jewish  calendar  was  lunar. 

The  lunar  year  of  twelve  moons  is  354  days,  and 
hence  falls  eleven  days  short  of  the  solar  year  of 
365  days.  Accordingly,  Nison  14th  would  be  correct 
once  every  three  years :  the  next  year  it  would  fall 
eleven  days  behind;  and  the  next  year,  twenty-two 
days  behind ;  and  the  third  year  it  would  be  brought 
up  again  to  its  correct  position  by  the  addition  of 


SATUEDAY  RESURRECTION  THEORY  171 

the  intercalary  montli.    Tims  Nison  14tli  would  liave 
a  range  of  twenty-two  days. 

If  Nison  14tli  was  on  March  25th  of  the  solar 
calendar  in  a  certain  year,  then  the  next  year  it 
would  fall  eleven  days  behind  March  25th  or  on 
March  14th,  and  the  next  year  it  would  be  twenty- 
two  days  behind  or  on  March  3rd,  and  the  third  year, 
Nison  14th  would  be  brought  up  again  to  March  25tli 
by  adding  the  intercalary  month. 

Or,  if  we  assume  that  April  25th  (instead  of 
March  25th)  was  its  most  forward  date,  then  April 
3rd  would  be  its  most  backward  date.  Or,  if  we  as- 
sume that  March  25th  was  its  most  backward  date, 
then  April  17th  would  be  its  most  forward  date.  But 
in  no  case  would  March  25th  be  its  most  backward 
date  and  April  25th  its  most  forward  date  as  Mr. 
Marks  assumes. 

Again,  since  the  lunar  calendar  falls  eleven  days 
behind  each  year,  in  three  years  it  would  fall  33 
days  behind  (or  34  days  when  leap  year  is  involved) ; 
hence  the  intercalary  month  would  be  at  least  33 
days. 

From  the  year  46  B.  C,  the  beginning  of  the 
Eoman  solar  calendar,  March  has  always  had  31 
days.  Then  from  March  25th  to  April  25th  would 
be  31  days.  Now  if,  as  Mr.  Marks  evidently  sup- 
poses, Nison  14th  be  advanced  from  March  25th  to 
the  full  number  of  days  in  the  intercalary  month, 
then  it  would  be  advanced  at  least  33  days  to  April 
27th;  and  if  April  25th  that  year  was  on  Wednes- 
day, as  Mr.  Marks  claims,  then  the  27th  would  be 
Fridoiy. 

We  have  now  met  Mr.  Marks  on  his  own  ground 


172  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

and  shown  that  his  own  assertions  destroy  his  own 
argument  at  every  point.  Mr.  Marks'  article  is 
practically  endorsed  by  Mr.  Richardson  in  pul^lish- 
ing  it. 

Onr  only  apology  for  discussing  the  Wednesday 
Crucifixion  and  Saturday  Resurrection  theory  is 
to  show  the  character  of  the  means  resorted  to  in 
order  to  destroy  the  Resurrection  testimony  of  the 
Christian  Sabbath. 


CHAPTEE  VIII. 

THE  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT 

''For  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and 
earth,  the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rested 
the  seventh  day:  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the 
Sabbath  day  and  hallowed  it/* — Ex.  20  :  11. 

This  is  the  Creation  reason  given  for  the  Sab- 
bath. Seventh-day  Adventists  have  called  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  it  contains  the  three  elements 
of  a  seaL    A  seal  must  show  three  things :  First,  the 


174  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 


ne 


name  of  the  person  bearing  authority;  second,  tL 
character  of  his  authority;  and  third,  the  territory 
over  which  his  authority  extends. 

**The  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth."  Here  God  is 
the  authority;  Creator  is  the  character  of  His  au- 
thority; and  the  World  (in  the  man  sense  applica- 
tion of  the  seal),  is  the  territory  over  which  His 
authority  extends. 

Adventists  claim  that  this  makes  the  Sabbath  the 
seal  of  God;  but  we  must  notice  that  the  sense  of 
a  seal  is  only  in  the  words  ^'For  in  six  days  the 
Lord  made  heaven  and  earth."  Then  the  seventh 
day  in  which  God  made  nothing  but  only  rested  can 
in  no  sense  be  a  part  of  the  Creation  seal.  As  a 
memorial  of  Creation  the  Sabbath  only  points  to 
the  seal.  Now  the  pointer  and  the  thing  pointed  to 
cannot  be  the  same. 

Whatever  ratifies,  confirms,  or  makes  sure,  car- 
ries the  sense  of  a  seal.  Therefore  the  great  seal  of 
God's  rightful  authority  is  the  fact  of  Creation 
which  is  ever  before  our  eyes.  ; 

We  will,  however,  try  to  enlarge  a  little  on  the 
Adventists'  idea  of  representing  the  seal  of  God, 
in  a  memorial  sense,  after  the  pattern  of  a  common 
seal. 

A  seal  needs  to  be  recorded.  The  record  of  God's 
seal  is  the  fact  of  Creation.  God's  seal  does  not 
depend  on  any  human  court  of  record,  and  there- 
fore should  carry  its  own  record.  Also,  to  be  a 
memorial  seal,  its  memorial  character  should  be  rep- 
resented. Thus,  in  addition  to  the  three  essential 
elements,  we  add  the  outer  circle  as  the  record  of  the 
fact  upon  which  the  seal  is  based,  and  the  stars  as 


THE  FOUKTH  COMIMANDMENT  175 

representing  its  memorial  character.  The  six  stars 
at  the  center  represent  the  six  days  of  Creation. 
The  hand  points  to  the  seventh  day  in  which  the 
Creator  rested.  The  outer  circle  of  stars  rej)resents 
time  divided  into  six-day  work  periods  after  the 
Creation  model.  The  hands  point  to  the  Sabbaths 
or  intermissions  of  rest  without  which  it  would  be 
impossible  to  thus  group  the  work  days  into  memo- 
rial periods. 

The  six  Creation  days  with  God's  rest  day  fur- 
nishes the  model,  and  each  six  work  days  followed  by 
a  day  of  rest  is  a  copy,  and  thus  a  memorial  of  the 
Creation  model ;  for  a  copy,  or  imitation  is  the  most 
effective  reminder  of  the  thing  imitated,  since  it 
carries  its  memorial  meaning  in  itself. 

The  hands  point  also  to  the  letter  *^C,''  which 
stands  for  Creation;  for  the  Sabbath  is  a  memorial 
of  Creation  through  the  inseparable  association  of 
God's  rest  with  Creation.  The  Creation,  not  God's 
rest,  is  the  all-convincing  proof  of  God 's  right  to  the 
title  of  ^^The  one  only  living  and  true  God;"  and 
reason  would  say  that  it  is  this  proof  of  His  rightful 
claim  to  man's  worship  that  God  wishes  to  hold  be- 
fore the  human  race  in  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath. 

A  seal  represents  authority;  and  when  stamped 
upon  a  document,  gives  the  authority  it  represents 
to  that  document.  Thus  in  the  v/ords  ^'For  in  six 
days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth"  it  would 
seem  that  God  has  placed  the  seal  of  His  authority 
upon  the  Decalogue,  or  ten  Commandments,  there- 
by giving  them  all  the  authority  which  His  seal 
represents. 


176  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

We  notice  further,  that  this  seal  is  attached  di- 
rectly to  the  Sabbath  commandment.  If  this  fact 
means  anything,  it  gives  to  the  Sabbath  command- 
ment special  importance;  and  this  special  import- 
ance is  seen  when  we  consider  that  just  in  propor- 
tion as  people  neglect  the  Sabbath  they  forget  God, 
and  just  in  proportion  as  they  forget  God  they 
ignore  His  Law.  This  is  the  universal  history  of 
the  Christian  Sabbath,  as  well  as  of  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath. This  fact  does  not  argue  that  the  Sabbath 
was  abolished,  nor  that  its  moral  nature  was  changed 
by  changing  the  day. 

If  the  time  circle  of  stars  in  the  seal  was  unbroken, 
there  would  be  in  it  no  memorial  meaning.  If  we 
were  now  to  take  out  every  eighth  star  or  every 
ninth  star,  etc.,  it  would  not  conform  to  the  Crea- 
tion model,  and  therefore  would  have  no  meaning 
as  a  memorial  of  Creation.  But  when  we  take  out 
every  seventh  star,  we  at  once  recognize  a  copy  of 
the  Creation  model,  nor  would  it  make  the  slightest 
difference  which  star  the  every  seventh  count  would 
take  out. 

But  the  stars  represent  days.  Now  if  the  Sabbath 
is  a  memorial  only  in  the  sense  of  a  regularly  re- 
curring count  from  a  fixed  day,  then  an  every  eighth 
day  count  or  an  every  ninth  day  count,  etc.,  from 
that  fixed  day,  would  answer  as  a  memorial  of  that 
day  as  well  as  an  every  seventh  day  count;  but 
evidently,  it  would  be  entirely  devoid  of  any  mean- 
ing as  a  memorial  of  Creation,  which  proves  that 
the  essense  of  the  Sabbath,  as  a  memorial  of  Crea- 
tion, does  not  consist  in  its  being  a  regularly  recur- 
ring count  from  a  fixed  day. 


THE  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT  177 

On  the  other  hand,  the  every  seventh  day  count, 
regardless  of  any  fixed  day  starting  point,  is  a  dis- 
tinct memorial  of  Creation  in  its  imitation  of  the 
Creation  model ;  nor  would  it  make  the  slightest  dif- 
ference in  its  memorial  effect,  on  which  day  of  the 
week  the  every  seventh  count  fell,  for  in  any  case  we 
cannot  fail  to  recognize  the  Creation  model:  and 
just  so  long  as  we  see  in  it  the  Creation  model,  it  has 
accomplished  its  memorial  purpose;  which  proves 
that  the  essence  of  the  Sabbath,  as  a  memorial  of 
Creation,  consists  in  the  every  seventh  day  count. 

We  see  therefore  that  the  Sabbath  contains  two 
distinct  memorial  principles, — a  fixed  day  principle 
and  an  every  seventh  day  principle, — and  that  the 
essence  of  the  Sabbath  as  a  memorial  of  Creation  is 
in  the  every  seventh  day  principle,  and  not  in  the 
fixed  day  principle ;  for  the  fixed  day  principle  may 
be  omitted  without  affecting  the  Sabbath  as  a  me- 
morial of  Creation,  but  the  every  seventh  day  prin- 
ciple cannot. 

Because  of  its  two  distinct  memorial  principles, 
the  Sabbath  is  capable  of  being  a  double  memorial, 
and  therefore  its  highest  memorial  value  consists 
in  its  double  memorial  meaning.  The  every  seventh 
day  principle,  unassisted  by  the  fixed  day  principle 
points  clearly  and  unmistakably  to  the  Creation; 
therefore  the  fixed  day  principle  as  a  memorial  of 
Creation  is,  to  a  certain  extent,  unnecessary  and 
superfluous;  and  in  so  far  as  it  is  unnecessary  or 
superfluous,  the  double  memorial  value  of  the  Sab- 
bath is  below  its  highest  mark. 

The  every  seventh  day  principle  is  distinctive  of 
Creation,  for  it  can  point  to  nothing  else  as  its 


178  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

origin;  but  the  fixed  day  principle  is  not  distinctive 
of  Creation,  for  it  may  point  to  other  events  as  its 
origin.  Thus  the  Christian  Sabbath  is  a  memorial 
of  Creation  because  it  conforms  to  the  Creation 
model  in  its  every  seventh  day  principle,  and  also 
a  memorial  of  the  Resurrection  because  it  is  a  reg- 
ularly recurring  seventh  day  count  from  that  event. 
Similarly  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  a  memorial  of 
Creation  in  its  every  seventh  day  principle,  and  a 
memorial  of  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage  in 
its  fixed  day  principle. 

We  may  notice  here,  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  is 
a  type  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  in  so  far  as  the 
deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage  is  a  type  of  the 
deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  sin  by  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ.  ^^If  Christ  be  not  raised,  your  faith 
is  vain;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins''  (1  Cor.  15  :  17). 
Is  it  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  God  would  use 
the  Sabbath  in  its  highest  double  memorial  capa- 
city to  commemorate  the  two  all-important  events 
in  the  world's  history — the  Creation  and  the  Re- 
surrection? It  would  be  unreasonable  to  suppose 
otherwise. 

Adventists  stoutly  affirm  that  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath is  in  no  possible  sense  a  memorial  of  Crea- 
tion, which  is  practically  saying  that  a  perfect  imita- 
tion is  in  no  possible  sense  a  memorial  of  the  thing 
imitated;  for  the  Christian  Sabbath,  following  six 
days  of  labor,  is  a  perfect  imitation  of  the  Crea- 
tion model.  At  the  same  tim.e  they  say  that  baptism 
by  immersion  is  the  God-given  memorial  of  the 
burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ.  Therefore  they 
recognize  the  principle  that  an  imitation  is  a  me- 


THE  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT  179 

morial  of  the  thing  imitated.  Where  now  is  their 
consistency?  If  baptism  by  immersion  is  a  memo- 
rial of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  then, 
on  the  same  principle,  the  Christian  Sabbath  is  a 
memorial  of  Creation.  To  deny  one  is  to  deny  the 
other. 

If  the  Christian  Sabbath  is  a  memorial  of  Crea- 
tion, what  objection  can  there  be  to  adding  the  Re- 
surrection luster  to  the  Creation  luster,  when  the 
luster  of  each  is  undimmed  by  the  other,  and  to- 
gether they  redouble  the  splendor  of  the  Sabbath 
luster  by  their  combined  luster? 

What  does  the  proportion  of  rix  days'  work  and 
one  day  rest  commemorate  if  it  does  not  commemo- 
rate Creation.  If  the  Christian  Sabbath  in  its  con- 
formity to  the  Creation  model  is  a  reminder  of  the 
work  of  Creation,  is  it  not  then  a  memorial  of 
Creation? 

But  Adventists  must  stand  by  their  theory  regard- 
less of  facts  or  reason,  and  therefore  cannot,  or 
rather  will  not,  recognize  any  memorial  principle 
in  the  Sabbath  but  the  fixed  day  principle.  Other- 
wise, they  would  be  compelled  to  recognize  the  fact 
that  the  Christian  Sabbath,  in  its  every  seventh  day 
principle,  is  a  memorial  of  Creation.  Would  not  an 
every  eighth  day  count  from  the  Creation  Sabbath 
be  a  regularly  recurring  memorial  of  the  creation 
Sabbath  in  the  fixed  day  sense,  as  much  as  an  every 
seventh  day  count?  In  denying  it  Adventists  must 
practically  admit  that  the  every  seventh  day  prin- 
ciple is  an  essential  memorial  principle  of  the  Sab- 
bath.   Then  we  ask  them,  why  is  not  the  Christian 


180  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

Sabbath  a  memorial  of  Creation?  But  **none  are 
so  blind  as  those  who  will  not  see.'' 

The  Creation  week  occupies  a  place  in  thought 
separate  and  distinct  from  time.  Each  day  stands 
out  in  bold  relief.  And  in  being  thus  a  complete 
and  perfect  w^hole  in  itself,  it  meets  all  the  require- 
ments of  a  model. 

We  read  in  Gen.  2  :  3,  **And  God  blessed  the 
seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it :  because  that  in  it  he 
had  rested  from  all  his  work  which  God  created  and 
made.''  Adventists  (practically)  interpret  this  pas- 
sage as  if  it  read,  ^'And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day 
of  every  week  of  time,  and  sanctified  them,"  etc. 
But  it  reads,  *'God  blessed  the  seventh  day  and 
sanctified  it,  because  that  in  it  he  had  rested  from  all 
His  work."  ^^It"  is  singular  and  cannot  possibly 
be  made  to  mean  anything  else  than  the  one  day  on 
which  God  rested.  Notice,  also,  that  the  words  *'had 
rested"  point  backward,  not  forward,  and  therefore 
can  have  no  reference  to  future  time.  This  is  an- 
other instance  of  how  Adventists  ^^just  let  the  Bible 
interpret  itself."  A  literal  interpretation  makes 
a  passage  mean  exactly  what  it  says — nothing  more 
and  nothing  less. 

But  why  did  God  bless  the  seventh  day  and  sanc- 
tify it?  He  must  have  had  a  purpose.  The  most 
fitting  memorial  possible  of  the  six  Creation  days 
would,  undoubtedly,  be  the  dividing  of  all  time  into 
six-day  periods,  and  God  would  use  only  the  most 
fitting  memorial. 

It  mil  be  seen  that  an  every  seventh  day  of  rest 


THE  FOUETH  COMIMAKDMENT  181 

was  absolutely  essential  to  this  end.  It  was  abso- 
lutely necessary  for  the  Creation  model  to  have  a 
contrasting  element  in  it  to  define  its  limits  as  a 
model  to  be  copied;  and  thus  the  six  days  of  work 
and  one  day  of  rest  became  a  repeating  seven  day 
cycle.  Therefore  **God  blessed  the  seventh  day  and 
sanctified  if  to  the  completion  of  the  Creation 
model. 

This  absolute  necessity  of  an  every  seventh  day 
of  rest  to  carry  out  His  memorial  purpose,  was  cer- 
tainly a  sufficient  reason  for  God's  sanctifying,  or 
setting  apart,  the  day  on  which  He  rested  to  the 
completion  of  the  model,  and  is  in  perfect  harmony 
with  the  literal  interpretation  of  Gen.  2  :'  3,  making 
its  meaning  complete  in  itself. 

Each  of  the  six  days  of  Creation  was  sanctified, 
or  set  apart  to  its  place  in  the  Creation  model,  by 
the  creative  work  done  in  it,  but  the  seventh  day 
required  a  special  act  setting  it  apart.  The  ele- 
ment of  contrast  needed  to  complete  the  Creation 
model  was  rest.  There  was  no  merit  in  the  mere 
fact  of  God's  resting  except,  as  it  served  an  end; 
and  the  only  end  it  could  possibly  serve  was  in  fur- 
nishing the  contrasting  principle  necessary  to  com- 
plete the  Creation  model.  Hence  the  rest  day,  or 
Sabbath,  is,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  the  memorial  prin- 
ciple in  the  Creation  model,  in  that  it  is  the  essen- 
tial element  by  means  of  which  time  is  divided  into 
six-day  periods  pointing  always  to  the  Creation  as 
the  all-sufficient  proof  that  God  is  ^Hhe  only  living 
and  true  God''  as  distingTiished  from  all  false  gods. 

The  Sabbath  is,  therefore,  in  a  very  real  sense, 


182  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

'^lioly  unto  the  Lord/'  as  absolutely  essential  in 
carrying  out  His  memorial  purpose.  God's  true  me- 
morial purpose  was,  undoubtedly,  the  dividing  of  all 
time  into  six-day  periods  commemorative  of  the  six 
Creation  days,  and  the  Sabbath  was  but  the  means 
to  that  end. 

Again,  we  read  in  Ex.  20  :  11,  ^'For  in  six  days 
the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea,  and  all 
that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day:  where- 
fore the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day  and  hallowed 
it.''     This  is  no  part  of  the  fourth  commandment, 
but  the  reason  given  for  it.    As  a  reason  given  it 
carries  the  force  only  of  a  reason  for,  not  a  part  of. 
We  may  look  at  it  as  a  seal,  but  a  seal  does  not  affect 
the  meaning  of  a  law  but  only  adds  authority  to  it. 
The  Creation  week  as  a  model  fully  satisfies  the 
demand  as  a  reason  for  working  six  days,  and  rest- 
ing the  seventh.    The  copy  can  point  to  nothing  else 
than  the  model  as  the  reason  for  it,  and  the  seventh 
day  in  the  copy  can  point  to  nothing  else  than  the 
seventh  day  in  the  model  as  the  reason  for  it,  but  a 
fixed  day  can  point  to  some  other  even  as  the  reason 
for  observing  it.    Thus,  as  a  fixed  day,  the  Sabbath! 
points  to  the  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage  to 
the  Jew,  and  to  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  to  the 
Christian,  but,  in  either  case,  it  points  to  the  Crea- 
tion model  as  the  reason  why  it  is  an  every  seventh 
day  instead  of  an  every  eighth  day  Sabbath,  or  some 
other  number.    Would  God  in  making  the  Sabbath 
a  memorial  of  Creation  be  more  likely  to  give  a  rea- 
son that  could  be  perverted  from  its  original  pur- 
pose than  one  that  could  not? 


THE  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT  183 

We  will  now  place  Gen.  2  :  3  and  Ex.  20  :  11  side 
by  side  for  convenient  comparison. 

Gen.  2    :  3.  Ex.  20   :  11. 

*'And  God  blessed  the  ''For  in  six  days  the 
seventh  day  and  sancti-  Lord  made  heaven  and 
fied  it :  because  that  in  it  earth,  the  sea,  and  all 
he  had  rested  from  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rest- 
his  work  which  God  ed  the  seventh  day  : 
created  and  made.''  wherefore     the     Lord 

blessed  the  Sabbath  and 
hallowed  it.'' 

These  passages  are  the  two  main  pillars  on  which 
the  meaning  of  the  Sabbath  law  rests.  Everything 
pertaining  to  law  must  be  interpreted  literally.  A 
literal  interpretation  assumes  nothing. 

The  first  passage  contains  the  plain  statement 
that ' '  God  blessed  the  seventh  day,  and  sanctified  it : 
because  that  in  it  he  had  rested  from  all  his  work." 
Taken  literally  it  means  exactly  what  it  says — noth- 
ing more  and  nothing  less.  The  very  fact  stated  nec- 
essarily completed  the  Creation  model,  for  it  fur- 
nished the  contrasting  element  needed  to  define  its 
limits  as  a  model  to  be  copied.  This  is  a  reason  for 
blessing  and  sanctifying  that  fully  satisfies  the  sense 
of  reason.  Why  then  go  outside  of  the  literal  inter- 
pretation to  find  a  reason  that  does  not  fully  satisfy 
the  sense  of  reason?  Even  if  both  reasons  equally 
satisfied  the  sense  of  reason,  yet,  if  they  conflict  in 
meaning,  we  must  accept  that  which  harmonizes  with 
the  literal  interpretation,  for  everything  pertaining 
to  law  must  be  interpreted  literally. 

The  second  passage  contains  the  plain  statement 
that  ''In  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth 


184  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

and  rested  the  seventh  day;  wherefore  the 

Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day  and  hallowed  it.'* 
Notice  particularly  that  God  blessed  the  institution 
of  the  Sabbath,  and  not  a  fixed  day  of  the  week,  for 
the  word  ^' Sabbath  *'  simply  means  rest,  and  does 
not,  in  itself,  specify  any  fixed  day  of  the  week. 
Neither  does  the  word  ^'Sabbath''  in  the  law  spec- 
ify any  fixed  day  of  the  week.  The  law  simply  says, 
**The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath '* — but  any  day 
after  six  is  the  seventh.  Don't  forget  that  a  literal 
interpretation  assumes  nothing,  and  that  law  must 
be  interpreted  literally. 

Again  notice  particularly  that  literally  the  word 
^'wherefore"  refers  to  the  entire  preceding  clause 
(because  of  its  unbroken  construction),  including 
the  entire  Creation  week  presented  as  a  model,  as 
the  reason  for  blessing  the  Sabbath.  Now  whatever 
complies  Avith  the  conditions  of  the  reason  given  sat- 
isfies its  literal  interpretation.  Every  one  day  in 
seven  does  comply  with  the  sole  condition  of  the 
Creation  model  and  therefore  fully  answers  the 
reason  given.  Hence,  taken  literally,  neither  the 
word  *^ Sabbath,"  nor  the  connection  in  which  it 
is  used,  specifies  a  fixed  day  of  the  week. 

But  in  order  to  sustain  their  fixed  unchangeable 
seventh  day  of  the  week  Sabbath  theory,  and  while 
posing  as  the  champions  of  literal  interpretation, 
Adventists  beg  the  question  at  every  point  by  as- 
suming the  very  points  that  need  to  be  proved. 

First,  They  assume  that  the  word  ^'wherefore" 
refers  only  to  the  seventh  day  on  which  God  rested, 
whereas,  literally,  it  refers  to  the  entire  preceding 
clause,  including  the  six  days  of  Creation  as  well  as 


THE  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT  185 

the  seventh  day  on  which  God  rested.  There  is  not 
the  slightest  ground  for  assuming  that  ^'wherefore'' 
refers  to  only  a  part  of  the  preceding  unbroken 
clause. 

The  great  memorial  of  God's  authority  is  the  fact 
of  Creation,  which  therefore  cannot  fail  to  be  the 
chief  end  to  which  the  Sabbath  as  a  memorial  was 
intended  to  point.  AVhy  is  it  that  Adventists  can 
see  nothing  but  the  seventh  day  on  which  God  rested 
as  the  reason  for  blessing  the  Sabbath?  For  this 
is  necessarily  what  their  fixed  day  interpretation 
resolves  to. 

They  admit,  however,  that  God's  resting  implied 
a  *' finished''  Creation,  and  that  the  seventh  day  on 
which  God  rested  in  turn  points  to  the  six  days  of 
Creation  from  which  He  rested.  Then  the  real  merit 
is  in  what  the  resting  implies  and  not  in  the  mere 
resting.    But  the  fixed  day  principle  points  only  to 
the  mere  fact  of  the  resting,  while  the  every  seventh 
day  principle  points  to  what  is  implied  in  the  rest- 
ing.   Just  as  all  that  God's  resting  implies,  stands 
in  its  following  the  six  days  of  Creation,  so  all  that 
the   Sabbath  implies   as   a  memorial   of   Creation 
stands  in  its  following  six  days  of  labor.    An  every 
eighth,   ninth,   or   some   other  regularly  recurring 
Sabbath  could  not  be  a  memorial  of  Creation,  be- 
cause it  does  not  conform  to  the  Creation  model; 
but  it  could  be  a  memorial  of  God's  rest  day,  in  the 
fixed  day  sense,  if  it  were  a  regularly  recurring 
count  from  that  day.    This  show^s  that  the  true  me- 
morial principle  of  the  Sabbath  is  in  the  imitation 
of  the  Creation  model,  and  therefore  that  the  entire 
Creation  week  as  a  model  was  the  reason  for  bless- 
ing the  Sabbath, 


186  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

Second,  They  assume  that  in  the  two  passages 
before  ns  (Gen.  2  :  3  and  Ex.  20  :  11)  that  ^^ Sab- 
bath day"  in  the  second  passage  is  a  mere  substitute 
for  ^^ seventh  day"  in  the  first  passage.  The  first 
passage  says,  *^God  blessed  the  ^seventh  day:'  " 
the  second  passage  says,  He  blessed  the  ^^  Sabbath 
day."  The  word  ^^ seventh"  in  the  first  passage  re- 
fers literally  to  the  day  in  which  God  rested  and 
which  completed  the  model:  the  word  '^Sabbath"  in 
the  second  passage  refers  literally  to  the  institution 
which  God  established  in  accordance  with  the  model. 
There  must  be  a  reason  for  changing  the  word 
*^ seventh"  in  Gen.  2  :  3  to  ^* Sabbath"  in  Ex.  20  :  11, 
and  this  difference  of  meaning  is  the  only  reason 
that  can  be  given. 

Tliirdy  They  assume  that  because  God  blessed  and 
sanctified  the  seventh  day  on  which  He  rested  (Gen. 
2:3),  therefore,  in  and  through  that  act,  He  blessed 
and  sanctified  every  seventh  day  of  the  week  to  the 
end  of  time.  Whereas,  Gen.  2  :  3  simply  states  that 
^^God  blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sanctified  it: 
because  that  in  it  he  had  rested  from  all  His  work." 

Hence  it  is  by  assuming,  instead  of  proving,  every 
essential  point,  that  Adventists  think  to  make  Gen. 
2  :  3  and  Ex.  20  :  11  fix  the  seventh  day  of  the  week 
as  the  Sabbath.  Thus  they  make  their  theory  the 
key  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  while  at  the 
same  time  boasting  that  they  **just  let  the  Bible  in- 
terpret itself." 

Adventists  assume  an  argument  in  the  definite 
article  *Hhe"  and  pronoun  *'it,"  as  applied  to  the 
Sabbath.     Thus,  Mr.  Andrews   {The  Sahhath  and 


THE  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT  187 

the  Law,  p.  66)  says,  ** There  is  not  one  indefinite 
expression  contained  in  this  precept.  It  does  not 
say  *one  seventh  part  of  time,'  it  does  not  say,  a 
^seventh  day,'  it  does  not  say  a  Sabbath  after  six 
days  of  labor  .  .  .  But  it  does  say  in  plain  terms, 
*  Remember  the  Sabhath  day  to  keep  it  holy;  the 
seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God;  in 
it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work;  in  six  days  the  Lord 
made  heaven  and  earth  .  .  .  and  rested  the  sev- 
enth day;  the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day,  and 
hallowed  it/  '^     (Italics  his). 

It  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  point  out  the  self-evi- 
dent fact,  that  the  Sabbath  as  a  definite  institution 
calls  for  the  definite  article  ^^the"  and  pronoun  ^4t" 
just  the  same  as  if  it  were  a  definite  day.  The  in- 
definite Sabbath  institution  that  Mr.  Andrews  puts 
up  to  hurl  his  argument  at  is  an  imaginary  target 
of  his  own  making.  He  only  attacks  an  assumed 
position  which  nobody  holds.  Besides,  God  fixed  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath  by  a  special  act  of  providence 
at  the  beginning  of  each  dispensation,  and  hence  it 
was  a  definite  day  during  each  separate  dispensa- 
tion. Though  not  the  same  day  in  each  dispensation, 
yet  it  would  be  the  Sabbath  day,  even  in  a  fixed  day 
sense,  in  each  dispensation. 

*^ Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep  it  holy,'' 
(Ex.  20  :  8).  Adventists  say  that  we  cannot  ^^keep 
holy"  any  thing  that  is  not  holy  to  begin  with,  which 
must  mean  that  each  Sabbath  is  holy  while  in  the 
future,  before  it  becomes  present :  Nothing  can  be 
said  to  be  holy  that  has  no  existence ;  and  therefore, 
no  day  can  be  holy  until  it  comes  into  existence; 


188  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

and  future  duration  before  the  day  measure  is  ap- 
plied is  no  holier  in  one  part  than  in  another.  There- 
fore no  day  is  in  itself  holier  to  begin  with  than  an- 
other ;  but  any  day  may  be  made  holy  by  being  set 
apart  to  a  holy  use,  and  we  keep  it  holy  by  keeping, 
or  observing  it  in  the  sense  for  which  it  is  set  apart. 

t 
'^Eemember  the  Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy.  Six 
days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  work :  but  the 
seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God: 
in  it  thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,  thou,  nor  thy  son, 
nor  thy  daughter,  thy  manservant,  nor  thy  maid- 
servant, nor  thy  cattle  nor  thy  stranger  that  is  with- 
in thy  gates.'' — Ex.  20  :  8-10.  This  is  the  whole  of 
the  Sabbath  law;  and  the  reason  given  for  it  is,  ^'For 
in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth,  the 
sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh 
day:  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath  day, 
and  hallowed  it.''— Ex.  20  :  11. 

Notice  particularly  that  the  Sabbath  law  does  not 
specify  what  day  of  the  week  is  the  Sabbath;  for  any 
day  of  the  week  is  the  seventh  after  the  six  preced- 
ing days.  Neither  does  the  Creation  reason  given, 
when  interpreted  literally,  specify  what  day  of  the 
week  is  the  Sabbath ;  for  any  one  day  of  rest  after 
six  days  of  work  is  in  accordance  with  the  Creation 
model  given  as  the  reason  for  blessing  the  Sabbath. 
Eemember  that  law  must  be  interpreted  literally. 
Even  man-made  laws  do  not  leave  vital  points  to  be 
understood,  inferred,  or  assumed.  We  cannot  ex- 
pect less  of  God's  law  than  of  man's  law.  *'The 
law  of  God  is  perfect"  (Ps.  19  :  7).  But  if  the  fixed 
day  element  of  the  Sabbath  is  a  vital  point, — ^yea, 


THE  FOURTH  COMMANDMENT  189 

an  all-important  point, — as  Adventists  hold,  is  it  not 
a  very  serious  defect  in  the  law  not  to  definitely  ^x 
the  day,  beyond  the  possibility  of  dispute?  (The 
fact  that  the  day  is  disputed  proves  that  it  is  not 
fixed  beyond  dispute).  Can  it  then  be  called  the  per- 
fect law  of  God? 

If  it  could  be  proved  that  the  original  weekly  cycle 
was  lost,  would  that  affect  God's  law  in  the  slightest 
degree?  It  it  could,  then  God's  law  is  not  perfect, 
in  that  it  is  dependent  on  conditions  outside  of  itself. 
But  perfection  is  God 's  mark  on  all  His  works.  Any 
interpretation  of  God's  law  that  puts  a  limiting 
weakness  in  it,  to  that  extent  defaces  God's  mark 
of  perfection,  which  seals  it  as  His  law. 

The  second,  third  and  fifth  commandments  also 
have  reasons  appended,  but  in  no  case  do  they  limit 
or  define  the  laws  to  which  they  are  appended. 
Neither  is  the  reason  appended  to  the  fourth  com- 
mandment intended  to  limit  or  define  the  Sabbath 
law,  but  only  to  give  the  Creation  reason  for  it  and 
thus  afiirm  its  memorial  character. 

« 

'^The  law  of  God  is  perfect":  and  the  very  fact 
that  it  does  not  in  itself  specify  what  day  of  the 
week  is  the  Sabbath  is  positive  proof  that  God  did 
not  intend  it  to  be  interpretated  in  any  fixed  day 
sense. 

Adventists  argue  that  the  expression,  ^^The  Sab- 
bath of  the  Lord,"  points  to  a  fixed  day,  and  that 
if  different  persons  kept  different  days,  these  differ- 
ent days  could  not  be  spoken  of  collectively  as  ' '  The 
Sabbath  of  the  Lord." 

But  we  must  take  into  account  the  individual  char- 


190  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

acter  of  tlie  law,  for  it  speaks  individually — ^Hliou," 
not  ye — to  each  person  as  if  he  were  the  only  per- 
son in  existence,  and  says,  ^^Six  days  shalt  thou 
labor,  and  do  all  thp  work;  but  the  seventh  is  the 
Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God, ' '  and,  as  between  him 
and  the  Lord,  it  is  ^^The  Sabbath  of  the  Lord," 
whatever  day  he  may  keep,  so  far  as  the  Sabbath 
law  in  itself  is  concerned. 

Man,  however,  is  not  an  isolated  creature.  His 
interest  and  welfare  are  interrelated  with  others, 
so  that  a  fixed  day  Sabbath  becomes  necessary  to  the 
highest  welfare  of  all.  But  the  fixed  day  element 
is  an  economic  question,  not  a  moral  question.  The 
moral  law  deals  only  with  moral  questions,  yet  the 
fixed  day  element  is  evidently  necessary  to  the  Sab- 
bath's highest  value.  Hence  it  must  have  been  in- 
cluded in  God's  plan.  But  we  must  not  fail  to  no- 
tice that  God  fixed  the  day  in  each  case,  not  by  the 
moral  law,  but  by  a  memorable  event  in  His  deal- 
ings with  man.  Thus,  God's  rest  after  Creation, 
the  Exodus  from  Egypt,  and  the  Resurrection  of 
Christ,  each  in  turn  became  the  basis  or  reason  for 
the  fixed  day  element  of  the  Sabbath.  The  unchange- 
able  every  seventh  day  element  of  the  Sabbath  has 
its  unchangeability  in  the  unchangeable  relation  of 
God's  rest  day  to  the  six  days  of  Creation,  and  not 
in  the  mere  event  of  God's  rest- 

We  have  shown  in  the  preceding  chapters,  that 
there  are  honest  and  sufficient  reasons  for  believing 
that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  the  original  Sab- 
bath. Adventists  think  they  have  honest  and  suffi- 
cient reasons  for  believing  that  the  seventh  day  of 
,the  week  was  the  original  Sabbath..     ISTow,  if  we 


THE   FOUBTH    COMMANDMENT  191 

have  done  nothing  more  than  to  establish  the  point 
that  there  are  honest  and  sufficient  reasons  for  a 
difference  of  opinion  on  the  question,  then  these 
very  honest  reasons  for  difference  would  make  it 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  Sabbath  law  to  specify 
what  day  of  the  week  was  the  Sabbath,  if  a  certain 
day  of  the  week  were  intended.  Otherwise,  the  Sab- 
bath law  would  be  uncertain  in  a  vital  point  and 
w^ould  lack  the  stamp  of  perfection  which  God  puts 
on  all  His  works,  and  fall  even  below  the  standard 
of  man-made  laws ;  for  man-made  laws  do  not  leave 
vital  points  to  be  understood,  implied,  or  assumed. 

Who  will  dispute  that  God  worded  the  Sabbath 
law  to  mean  exactly  what  He  intended  it  to  mean- 
no  more  and  no  less?  Deut.  5  :  22  says,  ^^And  he 
added  no  more."  Who  then  will  dare  to  add  to  it? 
Certainly  it  w^ould  be  presumption  to  attempt  to 
change  it  in  any  way,  either  actually  or  in  effect. 

To  make  the  Sabbath  law  definitely  specify  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  as  the  Sabbath,  it  would 
be  necessary  to  insert  the  words  *^of  the  week," 
after  ^* seventh  day,"  making  it  read  ^^ seventh  day 
of  the  week."  This  the  Adventists  do  in  effect. 
Of  course  they  deny  the  charge,  but  the  fact  re- 
mains. They  say  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  make 
the  insertion  because  the  inference  is  unmistakable. 
Here  they  beg  the  question.  Their  inference  is  based 
on  Gen.  2  :  3  and  Ex.  20  :  11,  and  we  have  shown 
that  their  interpretation  of  these  passages  is  a  mere 
string  of  assumptions  positively  contrary  to  the  lit- 
eral rendering.  Will  God  judge  men  by  the  literal 
rendering  of  the  law  or  by  Adventists'  interpreta- 
tion of  it? 


192  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

In  practically  adding  to  the  law  what  God  has  not 
put  there,  Adventists  are  gnilty  of  the  very  crime 
that  they  charge  to  the  Eoman  Catholic  Chnrch — 
they  ^' think  to  change  times  and  the  law''  (Dan. 
7  :  25.  E.  V.) — for  adding  the  words  ^^of  the  week" 
after  ^^ seventh  day"  vitally  affects  the  meaning  of 
the  law.  It  would  change  the  day  of  the  Sabbath 
now  kept  almost  universally  throughout  the  Chris- 
tian world.  It  would  have  the  effect  therefore  of 
changing  ^Himes"  and  God's  *4aw"  in  a  most  vital 
sense.  If  the  words  *'of  the  week"  were  Intended 
to  be  understood,  their  omission  would  be  consid- 
ered a  vital  omission  even  from  the  standard  by 
which  man-made  laws  are  judged. 

We  may  safely  lay  down  the  following  premises : 
God  makes  no  mistakes;  God  makes  no  accidental 
omissions;  God  has  a  purpose  in  all  that  He  does. 

If  these  premises  are  true,  the  omission  of  the 
words  ^^of  the  week"  in  the  Sabbath  law  was  not 
accidental.  If  not  accidental,  it  was  intentional.  If 
intentional,  there  can  be  no  stronger  proof  that  God 
did  not  intend  the  Sabbath  law  to  be  interpreted  in 
any  limiting  certain  day  of  the  week  sense. 

Can  Adventists  find  any  false  step  in  this  prop- 
osition, either  in  the  premises  or  in  the  argument! 
If  not  they  must  accept  the  conclusion;  and  in  ac- 
cepting the  conclusion,  they  cannot  escape  the  full 
force  of  the  accusation  in  Dan.  7  :  25  (E.V.),  of 
thinking  to  change  times  and  the  law."  Of  course, 
they  insist  that  they  do  not  insert  the  words  *^of 
the  week"  in  the  Sabbath  law,  but  they  certainly 
dp  insist  that  these  words  are  understood,  and  so 


THE    FOURTH    COMMANDMENT  193 

interpret  its  raeaning,  which  is  practically  the  same 
thing.     They  should  be  the   last  to  condemn  the 
'  Eoman  Catholic  Church  for  the  crime  with  which 
they  themselves  are  guilty. 

They  should  also  be  the  last  to  condemn  the  Pope 
for  claiming  inf alibility ;  for  they  practically  claim 
infalibility  for  their  theory — even  to  interpreting 
God's  law  by  it. 


(CE  :  Creation  Exodus) 
CHAPTER  IX. 


THE  DOUBLE  MEMOEIAL  JEWISH  SABBATH 

'^For  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth, 
the  sea,  and  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  sev- 
enth day:  wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the  Sabbath 
day,  and  hallowed  it/' — Ex.  20  :  11. 

*^And  remember  that  thou  wast  a  servant  in  the 
land  of  Egypt,  and  that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought 
thee  out  thence  through  a  mighty  hand  and  by  a 
stretched  out  arm :  therefore  the  Lord  thy  God  com- 


DOUBLE    MEMORIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  195 

manded  thee   to   keep   tlie   Sabbath  day.'' — Deut. 
5  :  15. 

These  are  the  two  reasons  given  for  the  Sabbath. 
The  first  is  appended  to  the  fourth  commandment 
in  the  Exodus  copy  of  the  ten  commandments;  the 
second  is  appended  to  the  fourth  commandment  in 
the  Deuteronomy  copy.  Each,  therefore,  stands  in 
the  same  relation  to  the  fourth  commandment.  Evi- 
dently, both  cannot  be  in  force  at  the  same  time  with- 
out making  the  Sabbath  a  double  memorial.  But  the 
Sabbath  is  capable  of  being  a  double  memorial  be- 
cause of  its  two  separate  and  distinct  memorial  ele- 
ments :  first,  the  every  seventh  day  element ;  second, 
the  fixed  day  element. 

God's  evident  purpose  in  these  reasons  for  the 
Sabbath  was  to  remind  of  His  power  and  rightful 
authority  as  the  one  only  living  and  true  Grod.  This 
end  or  purpose  is  clearly  seen  in  both  reasons :  in 
the  first,  as  relating  to  all  the  world  including  the 
Israelites;  in  the  second,  as  relating  only  to  the 
Israelites.  The  second  reason  reminded  the  Israel- 
ites of  what  they  saw  with  their  own  eyes,  and  would 
naturally  therefore  appeal  to  them  more  effectively 
than  the  first  yet  without  diminishing  the  force  of 
the  first.  Thus,  by  making  the  Sabbath  a  double 
memorial,  its  efficiency  as  a  means  to  an  end  in  the 
case  of  the  Israelites  was  more  than  doubled.  If 
God  made  the  Sabbath  a  means  to  an  end.  He  cer- 
tainly would  not  fail  to  make  it  a  double  memorial 
if  thereby  He  could  increase  its  efficiency  as  a  means 
to  an  end. 

The  day  on  which  God  brought  the  Israelites  out 
of  Egypt  became  to  them  their  birthday  as  a  nation, 
and  therefore  the  most  memorable  day  in  their  his- 


196  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

tory.  That  this  was  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  even 
Adventists  do  not  attempt  to  deny.  Then  the  sev- 
enth day  of  the  week  Sabbath  could  most  fittingly 
be  a  memorial  of  their  Exodus  from  Egypt.  It 
would  certainly  be  the  most  natural  and  effective 
means  by  which  God  could  constantly  remind  them 
of  His  "mighty  hand  and  stretched  out  arm"  that 
brought  them  out  of  Egypt,  and  thus  cause  them 
to  recognize  His  rightful  authority  over  them,  which 
was  evidently  the  end  He  had  in  view. 

For  the  Sabbath  to  be  a  sign  between  God  and 
the  Israelites  (Ex.  31  :  17),  it  needed  to  be  on  a  dif- 
ferent day  of  the  week  from  the  day  observed  by 
the  surrounding  nations.  Otherwise,  it  would  not 
be  a  "sign''  as  it  would  involve  no  distinction.  Now 
if  Sunday,  the  day  observed  by  the  surrounding  na- 
tions, was  the  day  of  the  original  Sabbath  (see 
proofs  in  Chap.  IV.),  it  would  be  necessary  for  God 
to  change  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  to  make  it  a 
"sign''  between  Himself  and  His  chosen  people. 

We  may  read  God's  purpose  in  the  fitness  of 
means  to  an  end.  If  God  purposed  to  change  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath,  He  could  have  used  no  more  fit- 
ting means  to  that  end  than  the  giving  of  the  manna, 
for  it  met  every  condition  that  a  change  of  day 
would  call  for : — 

1.  The  divine  power  manifested  in  the  giving  of 
the  manna  was  necessary  in  order  to  prove  the  di- 
vine authority  of  the  change,  for  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath was  undoubtedly  regarded  as  fixed  and  un- 
changeable because  of  time-honored  custom,  and 
nothing  short  of  means  bearing  the  unmistakable 
mark  of  divine  authority  could  have  changed  it. 

2.  The  giving  of  the  manna  abolished  the  old 


DOUBLE    MEMOKIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  197 

and  established  the  new,  in  one  and  the  same  act, 
w^hich  made  it,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  a  fitting  day 
changing  act. 

3.  The  fixing  of  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  by  the 
manna  a  number  of  days  before  the  giving  of  the 
law,  implies  a  change  of  day;  for  a  change  of  day 
would  make  it  necessary  to  ^^ prove  them''  before 
giving  the  law,  that  there  might  be  no  confusion. 
A  change  of  day  would  also  increase  the  effective- 
ness of  the  proof  as  a  test  whether  they  would  walk 
in  God's  law  or  no.  (Ex.  16  :  4.) 

4.  The  replication  of  the  creation  model,  in  giv- 
ing the  manna  six  days  and  withholding  it  the  sev- 
enth, implies  a  reaffirmation  of  the  creation  reason 
for  the  Sabbath,  and,  in  turn,  implies  a  change  of 
day,  making  such  reaffirmation  necessary. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  means  used  met  every  con- 
dition that  a  change  of  day  would  call  for,  and  there- 
fore there  is  nothing  in  the  giving  of  the  manna  to 
prove  that  the  day  was  not  changed. 

It  will  be  admitted,  that  changing  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  after  it  had  come  to  be  regarded  by  time 
honored  usage  as  fixed  and  unchangeable  would  bo 
much  more  difficult,  and  would  require  more  extreme 
and  positive  means  than  to  re-establish  a  day  partly 
lost  sight  of  through  neglect. 

Therefore,  if  Sunday  was  the  day  of  the  original 
Sabbath,  then  some  such  positive  means  as  the  giv- 
ing of  the  manna  was  necessary  to  change  the  day. 

Now,  if  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  was  fixed  and  un- 
changeable from  the  beginning  and  had  been  wholly 
lost  sight  of  through  neglect,  then  the  giving  of  the 
manna,  as  the  means  of  re-establishing  it,  would  not 
seem  to  be  unfitting  means  to  that  end  but  if  there 


198  SABBATH     q^HEOLOGY 

was  a  knowledge  of  the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath, 
even  by  Moses  and  the  leaders  to  whom  the  people 
looked  for  guidance,  and  no  other  day  was  regarded 
as  of  divine  authority,  so  that  there  was  no  danger 
of  any  confusion  in  regard  to  the  day,  then  the  Sab- 
bath law,  with  its  death  penalty  attached,  would 
have  been  sufficient. 

It  is  an  essential  point  with  Adventists  that  God 
never  permitted  His  Sabbath  to  be  wholly  lost  sight 
of,  and  therefore  they  do  not  claim  that  it  was 
wholly  lost  sight  of  by  the  Israelites  during  their 
bondage,  but  if  the  day  was  known  at  all,  it  was 
known  at  least  to  Moses  and  the  leaders  of  the 
people. 

Adam,  Lamech,  Noah,  Abraham,  Isaac,  Jacob, 
Joseph:  this  short,  direct,  unbroken  line  reaches 
from  Adam  to  the  sojourn  in  Egypt.  From  the 
promise  to  Abraham  in  Gen.  12  :  3  to  the  giving  of 
the  Law  on  Sinai  was  430  years  (Gal.  3  :  16,17). 
From  the  death  of  Joseph  to  the  birth  of  Moses  was 
about  64  years  (compare  marginal  dates). 

Moses,  as  the  adopted  son  of  Pharioh's  daughter, 
was  learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians'' 
(Acts.  7  :  22),  but,  ^'when  he  was  come  to  years,  re- 
fused to  be  called  the  son  of  Pharioh's  daughter; 
choosing  rather  to  suffer  affliction  with  the  people 
of  God,  than  to  enjoy  the  pleasures  of  sin  for  a 
season"  (Heb.  11  :  24,25).  This  was  evidently  the 
result  of  his  mother's  teaching — who  was  employed 
as  his  nurse  by  Pharioh's  daughter — and  shows 
how  faithfully  the  traditions  of  the  Israelites  were 
handed  down  from  parent  to  child. 

If  one  of  their  cherished  traditions  was  that  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  was  the  only  true  Sabbath 


DOUBLE    MEMOEIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  199 

of  God,  it  is  certain  tliat  that  tradition  was  faith- 
fully handed  down  with  the  rest,  and  that  they  there- 
fore recognized  no  other  day  as  of  divine  authority. 
It  was  only  necessary  that  the  leaders  and  teachers 
of  the  people  had  this  knowledge  of  the  true  day 
of  the  Sabbath,  for  they  decided  all  such  matters 
for  the  people. 

Now  if  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  was  not  changed, 
then,  under  these  conditions,  the  giving  of  the  man- 
na to  determine  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  was  mani- 
festly unnecessary. 

Adventists  will  deny  that  God  used  the  manna  as 
means  to  determine  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  but 
hold  that  the  manna  was  given  to  feed  the  Israelites 
and  that  God  withheld  the  manna  on  the  seventh 
day  because  of  the  existing  sanctity  of  that  day. 

If  God  had  such  regard  for  the  existing  sanctity 
of  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  why  did  He  lead 
the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt  and  cause  them  to  march 
all  that  day  when  He  could  as  v/ell  have  timed  the 
Exodus  on  some  other  day.  Adventists  insist  that 
Christ  had  in  mind  the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath  when 
He  said,  in  Matt.  24  :  20,  ^ '  Pray  ye  that  your  flight 
be  not  ...  on  the  Sabbath  day."  Then  if  the 
exodus  of  the  Christians  from  Jerusalem  on  the 
Sabbath,  at  Christ's  command,  would  have  been  a 
desecration  of  the  Sabbath,  surely  the  Exodus  of 
the  Israelites  from  Egypt  on  the  Sabbath  would 
have  been  a  much  greater  desecration.  The  Is- 
raelites numbered  six  hundred  thousand  men  besides 
women  and  children,  and  also  a  mixed  multitude, 
and  flocks,  and  much  cattle  (Ex.  12  :  37,38).  Com- 
pare this  with  the  small  number  of  Christians  who 
fled  from  Jerusalem  without  driving  any  sheep  or 


200  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

cattle.     The  relative  desecration  would  have  been 
in  the  same  proportion. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  existing  sanctity 
argument  is  based  solely  on  sheer  assumption,  for 
there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  in  the  record,  pre- 
vious to  the  manna,  that  God  regarded  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week  as  more  sacred  than  other  days; 
and  hence  the  giving  of  the  manna  does  not  fur- 
nish the  slightest  evidence  that  the  seventh  day  of 
the  week  was  the  Sabbath  before  that  time..  But 
on  the  other  hand,  God's  evident  change  of  attitude 
in  regard  to  the  sanctity  of  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week  as  between  the  Exodus  and  the  withholding  of 
the  manna  argues  a  change  in  the  day  of  the  Sabbath. 

In  Ex.  16  :  4  God  states  his  purpose  in  the  man- 
na thus,  ' '  That  I  may  prove  them  whether  they  will 
walk  in  my  law  or  no.''  Then  God  used  the  manna 
as  means  to  an  end  aside  from  feeding  the  Israelites. 
The  proving  consisted  in  keeping  the  Sabbath 
(verses  22-29),  which  in  turn  necessitated  fixing  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath,  unless  the  day  was  already 
known. 

The  pot  of  manna  placed  in  the  ark  as  a  memorial 
kept  for  generations  (verse  33),  also,  the  manna 
gathered  on  the  sixth  day  kept  over  to  the  Sabbath 
(verse  24) ;  but  on  other  days,  if  left  over,  it  *^bred 
worms  and  stank"  (verse  20).  From  which  it  is 
evident  that  God  could  just  as  easily  have  caused 
the  manna  to  keep  indefinitely  as  otherwise;  and 
hence  no  definite  manner  of  giving  it  was  essential 
to  the  feeding  of  the  Israelites.  Therefore,  while 
the  manna  in  itself  was  for  the  purpose  of  feeding 
the  Israelites,  yet  the  manner  in  which  it  was  given 


DOUBLE    MEMORIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  201 

was  for  the  purpose  of  proving  them  in  regard  to 
the  Sabbath. 

This  proving  was  some  weeks  before  the  Sabbath 
law  was  given  on  Sinai.  But  keeping  the  Sabbath 
would  have  been  a  test  of  obedience  after  as  well 
as  before  the  Sabbath  law  was  given  if  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath  was  known.  The  unmistakable  infer- 
ence is  that  the  day  was  changed  making  it  neces- 
sary to  determine  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  before 
giving  the  law  of  the  Sabbath,  and  therefore  that^ 
God  used  the  manna  as  means  to  that  end. 

The  manna  was  gathered  early  in  the  morning,*; 
for  ^Svhen  the  sun  waxed  hot  it  melted"  (verse  21). 
Then  withholding  the  manna  on  the  seventh  day  only 
removed  an  occasion  for  labor  during  a  small  part 
of  the  day;  but  removing  an  occasion  does  not  en- 
force rest  in  any  positive  sense,  but  only  leaves 
room  for  other  occasions.  Therefore  withholding 
the  manna  on  the  seventh  day  was  in  no  positive 
sense  an  enforcement  of  the  Sabbath.  The  only  pos- 
itive effect  was  to  determine  the  day  of  the  Sabbath. 
The  Sabbath  law  with  its  death  penalty  attached 
was  the  only  positive  enforcement  of  the  Sabbath. 

On  other  days  than  the  Sabbath  the  left  over 
manna  ^^bred  worms  and  stank."  The  question 
arises,  v/as  this  the  natural  result  or  did  it  involve 
a  purpose?  In  verse  19  Moses  said,  ^^Let  no  man 
leave  of  it  till  the  morning."  Here  Moses  clearly 
recognized  that  God's  purpose  in  the  manna  re- 
quired that  none  be  left  over — except  on  the  Sab- 
bath, as  provided  in  verse  23.  Then  it  is  certain 
that  God  had  a  definite  purpose  in  requiring  that 
none  be  left  over;  and  in  the  enforcement  of  that 


202  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

purpose,  the  manna  left  over  *'bred  worms  and 
stank.  ^ ' 

What  then  was  God's  purpose  in  requiring  that 
none  be  left  over!  The  evident  purpose  was  to 
prevent  the  people  from  gathering  more  than  one 
day's  supply  at  a  time,  which  would  have  counter- 
acted, in  a  measure  at  least,  any  day  determining 
application  of  the  manna.  No  one,  not  blinded  by 
theory,  can  fail  to  see  that  determining  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath  was  the  ultimate  purpose  in  the  require- 
ment that  none  be  left  over.  This  purpose  neces- 
sarily made  the  giving  of  the  manna  a  day  fixing 
means  for  determining  the  day  of  the  Sabbath. 

Now  if  the  Sabbath  law  in  itself  fixed  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath,  as  Adventists  claim,  then  it  was  evi- 
dently not  necessary  for  God  to  use  other  means 
to  fix  the  day.  Therefore  the  fact  that  God  did  use 
means  outside  of  the  Sabbath  law  to  fix  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath  is  self-evident  proof  that  the  Sabbath 
law  in  itself  did  not  ^x  the  day. 

Again,  the  fact  that  the  manna  was  used  as  means 
for  determining  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  in  turn 
proves  a  necessity  for  determining  the  day,  and  this 
in  turn  argues  a  change  of  day  in  the  very  otherwise 
lack  of  necessity;  for  it  is  evident  that  there  was 
no  need  to  determine  what  day  was  to  be  the  Sab- 
bath if  the  day  already  regarded  as  the  Sabbath 
was  not  changed,  even  if  the  day  was  known  only 
to  Moses  and  the  leaders  to  whom  the  people  looked 
for  guidance  and  no  other  day  was  regarded  as  of 
divine  authority.  Change  of  day  then  is  the  inevi- 
table deduction. 

In  view  of  Ex.  16   :  4,  Adventists  are  forced  to 


DOUBLE    MEMORIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  20."^ 

admit  that  the  manna  was  given  m  order  to  prove 
the  Israelites  whether  they  would  keep  God's  law  or 
no.  Can  Adventists  give  any  common  sense  reason 
why  it  was  necessary  to  ^' prove  them"  before  the 
Sabbath  law  was  given  on  Sinai,  if  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  was  not  changed?  It  certainly  would  have 
been  necessary  if  the  day  was  changed.  Does  not 
the  fact  imply  that  it  was  necessary  to  fix  the  day 
of  the  Sabbath  before  giving  the  law  of  the  Sabbath? 
But  why,  if  the  day  was  not  changed?  And  why, 
if  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  itself  fixed  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath?  Would  not  keeping  the  Sabbath  be  a  test 
of  obedience  after  as  well  as  before  the  law  was 
given,  if  the  day  was  not  changed?  Change  of  day 
is  therefore  the  only  adequate  explanation  of  the 
proving  beforehand. 

Also,  would  not  the  rulers  of  the  congregation 
(Ex.  16  :  22,23)  have  recognized  in  the  double  por- 
tion of  manna  on  the  sixth  day  a  preparation  for 
the  Sabbath  if  they  had  known  that  the  morrow  was 
the  Sabbath?  Then  why  did  they  come  and  tell 
Moses?  and  w^hy  did  Moses  have  to  tell  them  that 
the  morrow  was  the  Sabbath?  The  plain  inference 
is  that  the  morrow  was  not  the  day  of  the  week  that 
they  had  alwaj^s  regarded  as  the  Sabbath  and  that 
they  did  not  yet  understand  that  the  day  was  to  be 
changed. 

In  verse  23  Moses  said,  ^^  Tomorrow  is  the  rest  of 
the  holy  Sabbath  unto  the  Lord."  Adventists  say 
that  this  passage  proves  that  the  Sabbath  was  not 
changed  by  the  manna,  for  the  Sabbath  there  spoken 
of  was  the  first  Sabbath  by  the  manna,  and  it 
was   therefore   the   day   on   which,   if   at   all,   the 


204  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

day  of  the  Sabbath  was  changed,  but  it  is  spoken  of 
on  the  day  before  as  then  already  the  Sabbath  of  the 
Lord. 

But  the  revised  version  renders  it,  ^*  To-morrow 
is  a  solemn  rest;  a  holy  Sabbath  unto  Jehovah.'^ 
It  is  evident  that  the  revisers  would  not  have 
changed  ^Hhe'^  to  ^^a''  if  the  literal  rendering  had 
not  demanded  it ;  and  the  change  completely  reverses 
the  Adventists '  argument. 

Notice  again,  that  in  verse  5,  God  said  that  He 
would  give  a  double  portion  of  manna  on  the  sixth 
day,  and  it  is  evident  that  the  day  of  the  Sabbath 
was  then  fixed  in  God's  purpose;  and  in  that  sense 
could  fitly  be  called  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord,  even 
if  in  God's  purpose  the  day  was  changed.  But  it 
was  not  yet  the  Sabbath  in  an  applied  sense :  there- 
fore, in  verse  23,  it  is  fitly  called  a  Sabbath.  The 
change  from  ^*a  Sabbath''  to  "the  Sabbath"  is  in 
verses  25  and  26,  on  the  very  day  on  which  the 
change  in  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  took  place.  If 
this  point  argues  anything  at  all,  it  argues  that  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath  was  changed. 

Thus  the  giving  of  the  manna  in  itself,  and  all 
the  circumstances  connected  with  it  strongly  imply 
that  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  was  changed. 

When  some  of  the  people  went  out  to  gather  manna 
on  the  Sabbath,  the  Lord  said,  ^'How  long  refuse  ye 
to  keep  my  commandments  and  my  laws"  (verse  28). 
Adventists  say  that  this  language  implies  a  long  con- 
tinued violation  of  the  Sabbath.  Very  well,  but  the 
language  is  just  as  applicable  to  the  institution  of 
the  Sabbath  as  to  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  and  does 
not  argue  that  the  day  was  not  changed,  unless,  as 


DOUBLE    MEMORIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  205 

I 

Adventists  assume,  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath 
and  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  are  inseparable, — a  point 
which  has  already  been  discussed  in  preceding 
chapters. 

That  the  Sabbath  contains  two  distinct  memorial 
elements  does  not  need  to  be  proved,  because  the  fact 
is  self-evident ;  for  no  one  can  fail  to  recognize  in  it 
both  an  every  seventh  day  element  and  a  fixed  day 
element.  While  both  are  combined  in  the  Sabbath, 
yet  in  themselves  they  are  separate  and  distinct 
memorial  principles ;  for  we  can,  in  thought,  change 
one  without  changing  the  other.  The  first,  in  and  of 
itself,  is  a  memorial  of  creation  because  it  is  distinc- 
tive of  creation  and  can  point  to  nothing  else;  and 
thus  carries  its  memorial  meaning  in  itself.  The 
second  can  only  be  a  memorial  of  creation  in  connec- 
tion with  the  first ;  it  can  be  changed  and  the  Sabbath 
still  remain  a  memorial  of  creation  through  the  self- 
contained  creation  memorial  meaning  of  the  first. 

The  two  separate  and  distinct  memorial  elements 
of  the  Sabbath  make  it  capable  of  being  a  double 
memorial;  but  it  is  evident  that  it  is  only  the  fixed 
day  element  that  can  point  to  anything  else  than  the 
Creation.  Therefore,  to  recognize  the  Sabbath  as  a 
double  memorial  is  to  recognize  that  its  fixed  day 
element  may  point  to  some  other  event  than  the 
Creation,  and  is,  therefore,  not  necessarily  an  un- 
changeable element. 

This,  of  course,  is  fatal  to  the  Adventists '  Sabbath 
doctrine,  and  hence  they  cannot  accept  the  double 
memorial  theory  but  must  insist  that  the  Sabbath  is 
only  a  mem.orial  of  creation.    Therefore,  they  deny, 


206  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

in  the  face  of  Deut.  5  :  15,  that  the  Sabbath  was  to 
the  Israelites  also  a  memorial  of  their  Exodus  from 
Egypt.  (Another  example  of  how  they  *^just  let  the 
Bible  interpret  itself.'')  But  they  must  explain 
Deut.  5  :  15,  and  the  only  explanation  they  can  give, 
is  that  it  was  an  appeal  to  their  sense  of  gratitude. 
(See  Andrew's  Sahhath  and  the  Law,  pp.  55  and  78). 

Let  us  then  examine  Deut.  5  :  15. — ^'And  remem- 
ber that  thou  wast  a  servant  in  the  land  of  Egypt, 
and  that  the  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence 
through  a  mighty  hand  and  by  a  stretched  out  arm : 
therefore,  the  Lord  thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep 
the  Sabbath  day."  This  is  plainly  a  command,  not 
an  appeal.  A  command  and  an  appeal  are  distinctly 
contrary  in  their  nature,  so  that  there  is  no  danger 
of  mistaking  one  for  the  other.  It  begins  with  the 
word  ^^ remember" — the  same  word  with  which  the 
fourth  commandment  in  Exodus  20  begins.  The  word 
'^therefore"  applies  the  reason  given  to  the  fact  for 
which  the  reason  was  given.  It  can  only  refer  back 
to  the  reason  just  given  which  they  were  commanded 
to  remember;  and  it  can  only  refer  forward  to  the 
fact  that  God  commanded  them  to  keep  the  Sabbath 
day,  as  the  fact  for  which  the  reason  was  given.  The 
simple  fact  that  the  Israelites  were  here  coromanded 
to  ^^Eemember,"  etc.,  as  why  God  commanded  them 
to  keep  the  Sabbath  day,  necessarily  made  the  Sab- 
bath a  memorial  of  the  thing  they  were  to  remember. 

Certain  it  is,  that  if  God  had  meant  it  to  be  a  me- 
morial of  their  Exodus  from  Egypt,  He  could  not 
have  said  so  in  plainer  words,  unless  He  had  for- 
mally stated  that  it  was  a  memorial  of  their  Exodus 
from  Egypt;  but  He  did  not  make  such  formal  state- 


DOUBLE    MEMOEIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  207, 

ment  even  wHen  He  gave  the  Creation  reason  for 
the  Sabbath. 

Now  compare  the  creation  reason  given  in  Ex. 
20  :  11  with  the  Exodus  reason  given  in  Deut.  5  :  15 : 
First,  both  are  appended  to  the  fourth  command- 
ment and,  therefore,  stand  equally  related  thereto; 
second,  the  meaning  of  one  is  as  clear  and  unmistak- 
able as  the  meaning  of  the  other;  third,  the  advan- 
tage, if  any,  as  a  memorial  reason,  is  in  favor  of  the 
latter,  in  that  it  is  a  direct  command  to  ^^ remember.'' 

We  cannot  suppose  that  God  intended  the  latter 
reason  to  supplant  the  former,  and,  therefore,  we 
must  recognize  both  as  memorial  reasons  existing 
together,  and  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  in  a 
harmonious  sense  a  double  memorial.  But  to  be  a 
double  memorial  without  discord  or  confusion  of 
meaning,  either  reason  must  not  detract  in  the  slight- 
est degree  from  the  other,  and,  therefore,  each  must 
be  based  on  a  separate  and  distinct  memorial  ele- 
ment. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Sabbath  can  only  be  a  me- 
morial of  the  Exodus  from  Egypt  through  its  fixed 
day  element,  for  its  every  seventh  day  element  can 
only  point  to  the  Creation.  But  if  the  fixed  day  ele- 
ment may  point  to  the  Exodus  from  Egypt,  then  it 
does  not  necessarily  point  to  the  Creation.  If  it  does 
not  necessarily  point  to  the  Creation,  it  is  not  essen- 
tial to  the  creation  memorial  meaning  of  the  Sab- 
bath; and  if  not  essential  to  the  creation  meaning, 
the  day  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  necessarily  unchange- 
able. 

This  is  where  the  Adventists  object,  for  they  can- 
not recognize  the  double  memorial  theory  without 


208  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

recognizing  that  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  may  point  to 
some  other  event  than  the  Creation,  and  that  the  day 
of  the  Sabbath,  therefore,  is  not  necessarily  fixed 
and  unchangeable. 

But  they  cannot  take  Deut.  5  :  15  out  of  the  Bible. 
They  must,  therefore,  try  to  explain  it  to  harmonize 
with  their  theory.  They  refer  to  a  similar  passage 
in  Deut.  24  :  17,18,  and  say,  that  if  Deut.  5  :  15  made 
the  Sabbath  a  memorial  of  the  bondage  and  deliver- 
ance, then  Deut.  24  :  17,18  made  acts  of  justice  and 
mercy  to  the  helpless  also  a  memorial  of  the  bondage 
and  deliverance.  True — but  their  argument  only 
mocks  them;  for  the  very  fact  that  God  used  every 
occasion  possible  to  remind  the  Israelites  of  their 
deliverance  from  bondage,  makes  it  doubly  certain 
that  He  did  not  fail  to  use  the  most  effective  means 
(the  Sabbath)  to  that  end. 

They  say  again,  that  the  yearly  Passover  was  the 
God  given  memorial  to  the  Israelites  of  their  Exodus 
from  Egypt.  But  Deut.  5  :  15  has  plainly  no  refer- 
ence to  the  Passover,  but  to  the  weekly  Sabbath. 
And  because  the  Passover  was  a  special  yearly  me- 
morial certainly  cannot  interfere  with  the  Sabbath 
being  a  weekly  memorial  of  the  same  event.  Besides, 
the  Passover  was  directly  a  memorial  of  the  event  to 
which  the  word  ^^  Passover '^  refers,  and  not  directly 
of  their  Exodus  from  Egypt  (Ex.  12  :  24-27). 

The  ^^even  unto  even"  Sabbath  was  most  fittingly 
a  memorial  of  the  Exodus  in  that  the  preparation 
for  the  Exodus  began  the  even  before.  Now  if,  as 
we  have  shown  in  Chapter  I,  this  was  the  true 
origin  of  the  ^'even  unto  even''  Sabbath,  we  have 
another  positive  proof  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was 
a  memorial  of  the  Exodus. 


DOUBLE    MEMORIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  209 

God  gave  two  copies  of  the  Law  or  Ten  Command- 
ments; one  spoken  (Ex.  20  :  1),  the  other  written 
(Ex.  31  :  18) :  Ex.  20  :  3-17  is  the  record  of  the 
spoken  copy.  There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that 
Deut.  5  :  7-21  is  the  record  of  the  written  copy. 
Otherwise,  there  is  no  record  of  the  copy  written  on 
tables  of  stone.  The  written  copy  was  given  more 
than  forty  days  after  the  spoken  copy;  for  after 
Moses  had  written  the  spoken  copy  (Ex.  24  :  4)  God 
told  him  to  come  up  into  the  mount  and  He  would 
give  him  tables  of  stone  and  a  law  and  command- 
ments (verse  12),  and  Moses  was  in  the  mount  forty 
days  and  forty  nights  (verse  18),  and  when  God  had 
made  an  end  of  communing  with  him,  He  gave  him 
two  tables  of  stone,  written  with  the  finger  of  God, 
(Ex.31  :18). 

Therefore,  the  copy  in  Exodus  20  was  not  a  copy  of 
the  one  written  on  tables  of  stone,  because  it  was  be- 
fore, and  a  copy  must  be  after.  If  the  Deuteronomy 
copy  is  an  exact  copy  of  either,  it  must  be  an  exact 
copy  of  the  one  on  tables  of  stone,  for  it  is  not  an 
exact  copy  of  the  Exodus  20  copy,  as  comparison  will 
show. 

Immediately  after  the  Deuteronomy  copy  Moses 
says,  ^^  These  words  the  Lord  spake  .  .  .  with 
a  great  voice :  and  he  added  no  more.  And  he  wrote 
them  in  two  tables  of  stone,  and  delivered  them  unto 
me.'' — Deut.  5  :  22.  Moses  could  not  have  meant 
that  these  were  the  exact  words  that  God  spake  with 
a  great  voice,  for  comparing  them  with  Ex.  20  :  3-17, 
we  see  that  this  would  not  be  true.  He  must  have 
meant  then  that  God  spake  these  words  in  substance, 
not   in   the   lettei,   which   w^ould   have   been   true. 


210  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Neither  could  Moses  have  included  the  reason  given 
for  the  Sabbath,  for  it  was  entirely  different  from 
the  reason  that  God  spake  in  Ex.  20  :  11, — but  the 
reason  for  was  not  a  part  of  the  Sabbath  law. 

Now,  as  referring  only  to  the  law  in  substance, 
Moses  could  truly  say,  ^^  These  words  the  Lord 
spake, ' '  but  in  no  other  sense  could  he  thus  say  with- 
out contradicting  facts.  ^'And  he  added  no  more": 
this  is  true  (remembering  that  the  reason  given 
for  the  Sabbath  is  no  part  of  the  law),  for  the 
Deuteronomy  copy  adds  nothing  in  meaning  to  the 
substance  of  the  law. 

*^And  he  wrote  them  in  two  tables  of  stone.''  Now 
if  the  law  written  on  tables  of  stone  was  an  exact 
copy  of  the  law  spoken  in  Exodus  20,  that  fact  would 
have  clearly  indicated  to  Moses  that  the  exact  word- 
ing of  the  law  was  fixed  and  unchangeable.  Hence 
he  would  have  been  careful  to  quote  it  in  the  exact 
letter;  and  the  fact  that  he  did  not  quote  the  exact 
letter  of  the  law  as  spoken,  is  strong  presumptive 
evidence  that  the  law  as  spoken  by  the  voice  of  God 
and  the  law  as  written  by  the  finger  of  God  on  tables 
of  stone  were  not  worded  exactly  alike,  and  that  the 
copy  in  Deuteronomy  is  an  exact  copy  of  the  latter, 
since  it  is  not  an  exact  copy  of  the  former. 

All  this  implies  that  God  gave  first  a  general 
worldwide  statement  of  His  law,  which  of  course  in- 
cluded the  Israelites,  and  that  afterward  He  gave  to 
the  Israelites  a  special  copy  written  on  tables  of 
stone  and  worded  with  special  reference  to  His  deal- 
ings with  them ;  and  that  the  two  copies  are  substan- 
tially the  same ;  except  the  reason  given  for  the  Sab- 
bath,— the  first  reason  being  worldwide  in  its  appli- 


DOUBLE    MEMOBIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  211 

cation,  and  the  second  reason  applicable  only  to  the 
Israelites. 

A  general  principle  or  law  should  always  be  stated 
before  a  particular  application  thereof  is  made,  and 
therefore  the  very  nature  of  the  case  called  for  a 
general  statement  of  God's  law  before  a  special  ap- 
plication thereof  to  the  Israelites  could  be  given. 

The  Deuteronomy  copy  is  supposed  to  have  been 
written  by  Moses  forty  years  after  the  law  was  given. 
During  all  these  years  he  was  the  judge,  interpreter, 
and  executor  of  the  law,  and  therefore  he  must 
necessarily  have  made  the  law  a  special  study.  Add 
to  this  the  memory  engraving  manner  by  which  it 
was  given,  and  we  can  conclude  with  absolute  cer- 
tainty that  every  letter  of  the  law  (in  both  copies) 
was  engraven  on  his  memory,  and  therefore  he  would 
most  naturally  have  quoted  either  copy  in  the  exact 
letter;  for  when  the  exact  letter  is  fixed  in  the 
memory  it  is  easier  to  quote  the  exact  letter  than 
otherwise, — besides  the  original  copies  were  at  hand 
to  refer  to  if  necessary.  Hence  there  was  not  the 
slightest  excuse  for  his  writing  and  placing  on  per- 
manent record  an  inaccurate  copy  of  the  law;  and 
we  may  therefore  be  sure  that  he  did  not,  but  that 
Deut.  5  :  7-21  is  an  exact  copy  of  the  law  as  writ- 
ten on  the  tables  of  stone.  Moreover,  the  tables  of 
stone  were  lost  during  the  Babylonian  captivity, 
about  five  hundred  years  before  Christ  and  because 
God  foreknew  this,  it  is  reasonable  that  He  would 
cause  a  true  copy  to  be  placed  on  record. 

We  read  in  Ex.  24  :  12,  ^^And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Moses,  come  up  to  me  into  the  mount,  and  be  there : 
and  I  will  give  thee  tables  of  stone,  and  a  law,  and 


212  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

commandments  which  I  have  written ;  that  thou  may- 
est  teach  them/'  Here  Moses  is  practically  in- 
structed to  teach  the  copy  of  the  law  written  on  the 
tables  of  stone. 

Now  we  read  in  Deut.  5  : 1,  ^^And  Moses  called  all 
Israel,  and  said  unto  them,  Hear,  0  Israel,  the  stat- 
utes and  judgments  which  I  speak  in  your  ears  this 
day,  that  ye  may  learn  them,  and  keep,  and  do  them.'' 
Then  he  speaks  the  Ten  Commandments.  And  in 
accordance  with  his  instructions  in  Ex.  24  :  12,  he 
necessarily  speaks  the  copy  written  on  the  tables  of 
stone. 

Furthermore,  it  was  not  necessary  again  to  record 
the  spoken  copy,  for  it  was  already  written  by  Moses 
in  Exodus  20;  but  the  tables  of  stone  were  kept  in 
the  ark,  and  it  was  manifestly  desirable  to  have  a 
written  copy  for  more  ready  reference. 

Finally,  it  was  evidently  not  necessary  for  God  to 
give  two  identical  copies  of  the  Ten  Commandments. 
Then  on  the  principle  that  God  does  nothing  that  is 
unnecessary,  it  follows  that  the  two  copies  must  dif- 
fer in  some  important  particular;  and  if  they  dif- 
fered in  some  important  particular,  God  would  un- 
doubtedly cause  a  true  copy  of  each  to  be  placed  on 
record.  Since  the  only  essential  difference  in  the 
only  two  copies  on  record,  is  the  reason  appended 
to  the  Sabbath  law,  we  must  conclude  that  these  rea- 
sons were  each  separately  essential  to  God's  purpose 
sufficiently  to  warrant  two  separate  copies  of  the 
Ten  Commandments. 

All  these  facts  put  together  argue  with  conclusive 
force,  that  the  copy  of  the  Ten  Commandments  in 
Deuteronomy  5  is  a  copy  of  the  Ten  Command- 


DOUBLE    MEMORIAL    JEWISH    SABBATH  213 

merits  as  written  on  the  tables  of  stone,  and  there- 
fore that  the  Exodus  reason  there  given  for  the  Sab- 
bath, and  not  the  creation  reason,  was  the  one  writ- 
ten on  the  tables  of  stone.  Then  instead  of  keeping 
the  day  of  the  original  Sabbath  as  they  fondly  im- 
agine, Adventists  keep  the  day  fixed  by  the  manna 
to  commemorate  to  the  Israelites  their  Exodus  from 
Egypt,  and  hence  only  a  Jewish  ordinance. 

The  Jewish  Sabbath  and  the  Christian  Sabbath 
equally  commemorate  the  Creation  in  their  every 
seventh  day  element,  but  one  commemorates  the 
Exodus  and  the  other  the  Resurrection  in  their  fixed 
day  element. 


(CR:  Creation  Resurrection) 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  DOUBLE  MEMORIAL  CHRISTIAN  SABBATH. 


The  Creation  reason  for  the  Sabbath  still  remains, 
because  it  is  unchangeable  in  its  very  nature. 

The  Exodus  reason  ended  at  the  cross ;  for  the  de- 
liverance from  Egyptian  bondage  had  its  antitype  in 
the  deliverance  from  the  bondage  of  sin  in  the  death 
and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. — ^^If  the  Son 
therefore  shall  make  you  free,  ye  shall  be  free  in- 
deed'' (John  8  :  36).    Thus  the  reason  which  fixed 


DOUBLE   MEMORIAL   CHRISTIAN    SABBATH  215 


1 


the  day  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  canceled;  but  an" 
all-sufficient  day-fixing  reason,  in  the  Eesurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ,  has  taken  its  place.  The  former  was 
appended  to  the  fourth  commandment  as  written  on 
*  tables  of  stone'';  the  latter  is  appended  to  the 
fourth  commandment  as  written  on  the  ^'fleshy 
tables  of  the  heart.'' 

If  we  look  into  our  own  hearts,  do  we  read  there 
the  reason  given  in  Deut.  5  :  15 !  Or  do  we  read,  ^  ^  Re- 
member that  Jesus  Christ  of  the  seed  of  David  was 
raised  from  the  dead"  (2  Tim.  2  :  8) — ^^And  de- 
clared to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  power  ...  by 
the  resurrection  from  the  dead"  (Rom.  1  :  4). — 
*^And  if  Christ  be  not  raised,  (our)  faith  is  vain, 
(we)  are  yet  in  (our)  sins.  .  .  .  But  now  is 
Christ  risen  from  the  dead,  and  become  the  first 
fruits  of  them  that  slept"  (1  Cor.  15  :  17,20).  (He) 
is  ^^the  resurrection  and  the  life;  he  that  believeth  in 
(Him),  though  he  were  dead,  yet  shall  he  live" 
(John  11  :  25). — ^'For  God,  who  commanded  the 
light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined  in  our 
hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the  glory 
of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.  .  .  Knowing 
that  he  which  raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  raise 
us  up  also  by  Jesus"  (2  Cor.  4  :  6,14). — ^^Wlio  was 
delivered  for  our  offences,  and  raised  again  for  our 
justification"  (Rom.  4  :  25). — ^^By  him  (we)  do  be- 
lieve in  God,  that  raised  him  up  from  the  dead,  and 
gave  him  glory  that  (our)  faith  and  hope  might  be 
in  God"  (1  Pet.  1  :  21).— ^^ Who  hath  saved  us,  and 
called  us  with  an  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our 
works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace, 
which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world 


216  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

began.  But  is  now  made  manifest  hy  tlie  appearing 
of  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath  abolished 
death,  and  hath  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light 
through  the  gospel' '  (2  Tim.  1  :  9,10). — "Blessed  be 
the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
according  to  his  great  mercy  begat  us  again  unto  a 
living  hope  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ'' 
(1  Pet.  1  :  3,  E.  V.).— "To  God  only  wise,  be  glory 
through  Jesus  Christ  forever"  (Rom.  16  :  27)  I 

Paul  "preached  .  .  .  Jesus  and  the  resurrec- 
tion" (Acts  17  :  18). — The  "hope  of  eternal  life, 
which  God,  that  cannot  lie,  promised  before  the  world 
began''  (Titus  1  :  2). — "That  through  death  he 
might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that 
is,  the  devil  and  deliver  them  who  through  fear  of 
death  were  all  their  lifetime  subject  to  bondage" 
(Heb.  2  :  14,15).— "For  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that 
raised  up  Jesus  from  the  dead,  dwell  in  you,  he  that 
raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken 
your  mortal  bodies  by  his  spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you" 
(Rom.  8  :  11). — "Like  as  Christ  was  raised  up  from 
the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even  so  we  also 
should  walk  in  newness  of  life"  (Rom.  6  :  4). — "For 
if  we  believe  that  Jesus  died  and  rose  again,  even  so 
them  also  which  sleep  in  Jesus  will  God  bring  with 
him"  (1  Thess.  4  :  14).  We  might  quote  many  other 
passages. 

The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  guarantee 
of  the  Christian's  resurrection,  and  of  eternal  life. 
It  is  the  proof  that  God  accepted  the  Atonement 
made  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  therefore  eternal  life 
is  promised  to  all  those  who  will  accept  it  through 
believing  in  Jesus  Christ  as  their  Saviour. — "For 


DOUBLE    MEMORIAL   CHRISTIAN    SABBATH  217 

.  I 

by  grace  are  ye  saved  tlirougii  faith  and  that  not  of 
yourselves:  it  is  the  gift  of  God"  (Eph.  3  :  8). 

This  hope  of  eternal  life  through  the  Resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ  was  promised  before  the  world  be- 
gan: For  we  read,  ^'In  hope  of  eternal  life,  which 
God,  that  cannot  lie,  promised  before  the  world  be- 
gan''  (Titus  1  :  2). — '^  Who  hath  saved  us,  and  called 
us  with  an  holy  calling,  not  according  to  our  works, 
but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and  grace,  which 
was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  before  the  world  began" 
(2  Tim.  1  :  9). — ^^ According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in 
him  before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  (Epli. 
1  :  4). — ^^  Which  from  the  beginning  of  the  world 
hath  been  hid  in  God"  (Eph.  3  :  9). — ^^But  with  the 
precious  blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blem- 
ish and  without  spot :  Who  verily  was  foreordained 
before  the  foundation  of  the  world"  (1  Pet. 
1  :  19,20). — ^^The  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world"  (Rev.  13  :  8). 

These  passages  show  plainly  that  the  Redemption 
of  man  through  Jesus  Christ  was  planned  by  God 
even  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  and  there- 
fore before  the  Sabbath,  which  was  after  the  world 
was  created.  The  Resurrection  was  God's  seal  of 
recognition  and  approval  by  which  we  know  that  the 
plan  of  Redemption  through  Jesus  was  from  and  of 
God.  Without  the  Resurrection,  the  plan  of  Re- 
demption would  be  like  a  legal  document  without  an 
official  seal  to  make  it  valid. 

God  created  the  heavens  ^^by  the  breath  of  his 
mouth"  (Ps.  33  :  6),  but  He  redeemed  the  world  by 
the  sacrifice  of  His  only  begotten  son  (John  3  :  16) ; 
by  which  we  see  how  much  greater  in  the  sight  of 


218  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

God  is  the  work  of  Eedemption  than  the  work  of 
Creation. 

The  world  was  created  for  man.  God  knew  that 
man  would  fall  even  before  He  created  the  world; 
because  He  planned  before  the  foundation  of  the 
world  for  man^s  Eedemption.  Therefore  the  Crea- 
tion itself,  and  all  of  God's  dealings  with  man,  had 
this  one  end  in  view, — the  Redemption  of  man, — 
which  (so  far  as  the  means  was  concerned)  was  com- 
pleted, sealed,  and  signed  by  God  in  the  Resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Resurrection  therefore 
was  the  climax  of  the  plan  of  Redemption  before  the 
foundation  of  the  world ;  for  God  did  not  plan  an  in- 
complete Redemption. 

Now,  did  God,  with  the  Redemption  as  the  sole  end 
in  view  for  which  all  things  were  made,  when  He 
instituted  the  Sabbath,  make  it  point  only  backward 
to  Creation,  and  not  also  forward  to  Redemption? 
Since  this  conclusion  would  be  unreasonable,  and 
since  it  is  only  the  first  day  of  the  week  Sabbath  that 
points  to  Redemption,  we  conclude  that  when  God 
first  instituted  the  Sabbath,  he  made  it  point  for- 
ward to  Redemption  as  the  first  day  of  the  time 
week,  and  backward  to  Creation  as  the  seventh  day 
of  the  model  week. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath  was  changed  to  the  seventh  day 
of  the  time  week,  whereby  it  became  a  double  me- 
morial,— pointing  to  the  Creation  through  its  every 
seventh  day  element,  and  through  its  fixed  day  ele- 
ment pointing  memorially  back  to  the  deliverance 
from  Egjrptian  bondage,  and  typically  forward 
through  that  event  to  the  deliverance  from  the  bond- 


DOUBLE   MEMORIAL  CHRISTIAN^, SABBATH  219 

age  of  sin  in  tlie  Eesurrection  of  Jesus  Christ, — in 
whicli  we  observe  the  transition  stage,  from  the  typi- 
cal to  the  memorial,  in  its  fixed  day  element.  More- 
over, the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  the  first  day  of  the 
week  in  the  original  Jewish  calendar,  beginning  in 
Ex.  12  :  2  (as  shown  on  pages  114, 115),  thus  retain- 
ing its  original  typical  meaning  in  a  modulatory,  or 
transition,  sense  till  the  Eesurrection;  and  still  the 
Sabbath  points  typically  forward  to  the  soul  rest  in 
Christ  and  the  final  rest  in  heaven. 

God  made  the  Sabbath  (by  changing  the  day)  to  be 
a  sign  between  Himself  and  the  Israelites  (Ex. 
31  :  17),  thus  making  it  a  mark  of  distinction 
between  them  and  the  surrounding  nations;  but 
when  God  in  Christ  removed  the  distinction  between 
Jew  and  Gentile  (Eph.  2  :  10-22),  He  removed  tho 
sign  of  distinction  and  restored  the  original  day  of 
the  Sabbath. 

God  could  have  timed  the  crucifixion  so  that  Christ 
would  have  risen  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  week. 
"Why  then  did  God  thus  honor  the  first  day  of  the 
week  above  the  seventh  day,  if  the  seventh  was  the 
day  most  entitled  to  honor  ?  The  very  fact  that  the 
Resurrection  was  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  proves, 
in  itself,  that  if  one  day  of  the  week  was  more  en- 
titled to  honor  than  another  because  of  God's  rest 
after  Creation,  it  was  the  first  day  of  the  week,  and 
thus  argues  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was  the 
day  of  the  original  Sabbath. 

In  just  so  far  as  the  Redemption  was  a  greater 
work  than  the  Creation,  is  the  Resurrection  a  greater 
memorial   event   than   God's   rest   after   Creation, 


220  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

which  fact  in  itself  would  give  the  Eesurrection  a 
pre-eminence  over  God's  rest  after  Creation  as  an 
event  to  be  commemorated,  even  if  they  were  not  on 
the  same  day  of  the  week. 

The  Resurrection  was  therefore  in  and  of  itself  a 
sufficient  reason  for  changing  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath. 

Adventists  ask,  *^  Where  is  the  authority  for  the 
changer'  We  ask,  where  is  the  authority  for  the 
change  to  the  seventh  day  of  the  week?  The  only 
true  answer  is,  *  ^  The  manna. ' '  Then  we  answer  their 
question  by  pointing  to  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

God  has  never  at  any  time  fixed  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  by  the  moral  law ;  for  the  fixed  day  element 
of  the  Sabbath  is  an  economic,  not  a  moral  question, 
and  the  moral  law  deals  only  with  moral  questions. 
God  has  therefore,  always  fixed  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath by  providence,  not  by  moral  law.  And  the  mark 
of  providence  in  the  Resurrection  is  too  clear  to  be 
mistaken. 

The  Sabbath  law  does  not — without  assuming  as 
understood  the  words  ^^of  the  week"  after  ^^ seventh 
day'' — specify  what  day  of  the  week  is  the  Sabbath; 
and  we  can  be  sure  that  God  left  no  vital  point  to  be 
merely  inferred,  understood,  or  assumed,  and  that 
He  made  no  accidental  omissions. 

Let  Adventists  first  prove,  that  the  Creation  days 
were  twenty-four  hour  days,  that  time  began  with 
the  first  day  of  Creation,  that  God  rested  on  the 
seventh  day  of  the  first  week  of  timej  that  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath  was  not  changed  by  the  manna,  and  that 
the  fourth  commandment  fixes  the  day  of  the  Sab- 


DOUBLE   MEMOKIAL.  CHKISTIAN   SABBATH  221 

bath.  It  will  then  be  soon  enough  for  them  to  ask, 
*' Where  is  the  authority  for  the  change  to  the  first 
day  of  the  week  f 

Would  God  restore  the  day  of  sun-w^orship  ?  If 
He  had  not,  Satan  would  have  had  a  victory  to 
boast  of  forever. 

Satan  caused  the  true  spiritual  worship  of  God 
to  gradually  materialize  into  sun-worship  by  using 
the  natural  tendency  of  fallen  man  to  use  material 
objects  to  represent  spiritual  things,  and  thus  use 
the  sun,  as  the  most  fitting  object  in  nature,  to  repre- 
sent God.  He  also  used  the  ever  increasing  force 
of  habit  to  retain  the  original  day  of  the  Sabbath. 
Thus  he  perverted  the  day  of  the  original  Sabbath 
to  his  own  use ;  and  the  first  day  of  the  week,  which, 
as  the  first,  rightfully  belonged  to  God,  he  claimed  as 
his  own.  God  gave  it  up  to  him  for  a  time,  only  to 
restore  it  all  the  more  gloriously  in  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ.  God  gave  it  up  for  a  time  only  be- 
cause He  could,  by  changing  the  day,  better  turn  the 
hearts  of  His  chosen  people  away  from  sun-worship 
back  to  Himself,  and  through  them  prepare  the  way 
for  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  God. — ^'For  this  pur- 
pose the  Son  of  God  was  manifested,  that  he  might 
destroy  the  works  of  the  deviP'  (1  John  3  :  8). 

God  can  well  bide  His  time,  for  Satan's  temporary 
success  only  makes  his  final  defeat  all  the  more  com- 
plete to  the  glory  of  God. 

But  it  was  necessary  for  God  to  reclaim  the  first 
clay  of  the  week  as  His  own,  otherwise  Satan  would 
have  scored  a  permanent  victory.  To  give  up  the 
Sunday  Sabbath  is  to  recognize  Satan's  authority 


222  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

in  recognizing  his  claim  to  it.  No  one  is  so  ignorant 
as  not  to  know  that  Christians  keep  the  Sunday  Sab- 
bath solely  in  commemoration  of  the  Eesurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  without  the  slightest  thought  of 
sun-worship  with  it.  And  because  this  is  a  fact, 
there  is  no  danger  but  that  God  recognizes  it  as  a 
fact ;  for  the  fact  only  is  the  real  thing  in  the  sight 
of  God. 

Is  there  any  danger  that  God,  who  knows  the 
thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart,  will  attribute  the 
worship  of  Christians  on  Sunday  to  the  worship  of 
the  sun?  Why  then  do  Adventists  try  so  hard  to  as- 
sociate the  Christian  Sunday  Sabbath  with  pagan 
sun-w^orship,  as  if  God  was  a  mere  word  quibbler  and 
that  the  word  ^^ Sunday''  was  offensive  to  Him  be- 
cause it  signified  the  day  of  the  Sun?  If  God  re- 
jects Sunday  because  it  was  the  day  of  sun-worship, 
why  did  He  honor  it  above  every  other  day  of  the 
week  by  making  it  the  day  of  Christ's  victory  over 
death! 

Are  Christians  responsible  for  the  fact  that  the 
Eesurrection  was  on  Sunday?  Would  any  other  day 
of  the  week  answer  as  a  memorial  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion? Are  Christians  then  to  refuse  to  commemo- 
rate the  Resurrection,  on  the  only  day  possible,  when 
God  himself  chose  that  day  for  the  Resurrection? 
Do  Christians  worship  the  sun  on  Sunday  any  more 
than  Adventists  worship  Saturn  on  Saturday? 

If  the  names  of  the  days  of  the  week  serve  as  a 
means  of  reference,  they  answer  their  purpose,  and 
their  origin  is  a  matter  of  absolutely  no  consequence. 


CHAPTER  XL 

PENTECOST. 

In  Acts  1  :  3-5  we  read,  that  Jesus  *  ^  showed  him- 
self alive  after  his  passion  by  many  infallible  proofs, 
being  seen  of  them  forty  days,  and  speaking  of  the 
things  pertaining  to  the  Kingdom  of  God :  and,  being 
assembled  together  with  them,  commanded  them  that 
they  should  not  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for 
the  promise  of  the  Father,  which,  saith  he,  ye  have 
heard  of  me.  For  John  truly  baptized  with  water; 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  not 
many  days  hence.''  And  in  verse  9,  **And  when  he 
had  spoken  these  things,  while  they  beheld,  he  was 
taken  up;  and  a  cloud  received  him  out  of  their 
sight.''  And  in  verse  12,  **Then  returned  they  unto 
Jerusalem. ' '  And  in  verse  14,  ^ '  These  all  continued 
with  one  accord  in  prayer  and  supplication,  with  the 
women,  and  Mary  the  Mother  of  Jesus,  and  with  his 
brethren."  Luke  in  his  Gospel  (24  :  53)  says  that 
they  ^Svere  continually  in  the  temple,  praising  and 
blessing  God." 


224  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Again,  Acts  2  :  1-4,  **And  when  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord 
in  one  place,  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound 
from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it 
filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  And 
there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as  of 
fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they  were 
all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utter- 
ance." 

Pentecost  was  always  fifty  days  from  the  morrow 
after  the  Passover  sabbath  (Lev.  23  :  15,16).  Christ's 
ascension  was  forty  days  after  His  passion  (Acts 
1  :  3).  We  conclude  therefore  that  the  disciples 
spent  the  greater  part  of  each  of  the  intervening  ten 
days  together  (when  not  sleeping  or  eating)  in 
prayer  and  praise,  waiting  for  the  promised  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  they  knew  not  on  what 
day  it  would  be. 

Now  this  waiting  period  covered  more  than  a  week. 
But  only  the  seventh  and  the  first  days  stand  out 
from  the  others  in  their  respective  claim  to  recogni- 
tion as  the  Christian  Sabbath, — waiting,  as  it  were, 
God's  seal,  in  the  special  honor  of  the  descent  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  which  but  one  could  receive.  If  the 
seventh  day  was  the  one  perpetual  unchangeable 
holy  day,  above  all  other  days  of  the  week,  would 
God  honor  another  day  above  it? 

The  question  now  is,  was  the  day  of  Pentecost  that 
year  on  Sunday  or  Saturday?  For  Adventists  claim, 
that  as  Pentecost  was  a  fixed  day  of  the  year,  it 
could  not  be  a  fixed  day  of  the  week,  and  therefore 
came  on  different  days  of  the  week  in  different  years. 


PENTECOST  225 

t 

And  in  order  to  meet  them  on  their  own  ground,  we 
will  here  accept  their  position. 

It  is  almost  universally  conceded,  that  the  Pente- 
cost of  Acts  2  fell  on  Sunday.  Even  the  best  au- 
thorities among  Adventists  have  admitted  it.  Which 
fact,  in  itself,  shows  that  the  evidence  is  too  strong 
to  be  resisted;  for  they  certainly  would  not  yield 
the  point  only  upon  the  strongest  evidence.  Thus 
Elder  U.  Smith  {The  Sanctuary,  pp.  283,  284)  says 
*  ^  The  sheaf  of  firstf ruits  was  waved  on  the  sixteenth 
day  of  the  first  month.  This  met  its  antitype  in  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord,  Hhe  firstf  ruits  of  them  that 
slept.'  .  .  .  Pentecost  occurred  on  the  fiftieth 
day  from  the  offering  of  the  firstfruits.  The  anti- 
type of  this  feast,  the  Pentecost  of  Acts  2,  was  ful- 
filled on  that  very  day,  fifty  days  after  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  in  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
upon  the  disciples.''  Counting  from  the  Eesurrec- 
tion  Sunday  (Adventists  accept  the  fact  that  Christ 
was  crucified  on  Friday  and  rose  on  Sunday),  the 
fiftieth  day  would  fall  on  Sunday. 

Elder  J.  N.  Andrews  (in  answer  to  Mede,  Jen- 
nings, Akers  and  Fuller,  page  56)  says,  ^^That  the 
Savior  was  crucified  on  the  day  of  the  Passover,  and 
that  the  fifteenth  of  the  first  month  did  that  year 
come  upon  the  Sabbath,  we  think  to  be  true."  The 
Passover  sabbath  was  the  day  after  the  Passover 
(Lev.  23  :  5-7)  and  Pentecost  was  the  fiftieth  day 
from  the  morrow  after  the  Passover  sabbath  (Lev. 
23  :  15,16),  w^hich  would  be  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

Some  Adventists  are  loth  to  yield  the  point  that 


226  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

means  so  mucli,  and  still  hold  that  the  Pentecost  of 
Acts  2  fell  on  Saturday.  Thus  Alonzo  P.  Jones 
{Rome's  Challenge^  page  15,  footnote)  says,  ^^Our 
Savior  ate  the  Passover  with  His  disciples  the  night 
before  His  crucifixion,  and  He  was  crucified  on  Fri- 
day. Friday,  therefore,  was  the  first  day  of  the  feast 
of  the  Passover,  or  of  unleavened  bread.  The  mor- 
row after  that  day  was  the  day  from  which  the  fifty 
days  to  Pentecost  were  to  be  counted.  Lev.  23  :  6, 
11,15,16.  The  morrow  after  that  day  being  the  '  Sab- 
bath day  according  to  the  commandment'  (Luke 
23  :  56),  and  the  first  day  of  the  fifty,  it  is  evident 
that  the  fiftieth  day  itself  would  be  not  Sunday  but 
Saturday.  Anybody  can  demonstrate  this  for  him- 
self who  will  begin  with  the  morrow  after  any  Fri- 
day and  count  fifty.  And  as  the  Passover  was  al- 
ways on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  months  with- 
out any  reference  whatever  to  any  particular  day  of 
the  week,  it  were  impossible  that  Pentecost  should 
always  be  ^necessarily  Sunday'  as  stated.  Of  course 
this  note,  true  though  it  be,  has  no  bearing  on  this 
question  as  between  Catholics  and  Protestants,  as 
both  claim — the  Catholic  originally — that  this  par- 
ticular Pentecost  was  on  Sunday.  This  note  is  in- 
serted merely  in  the  interests  of  accuracy  and  not 
with  the  intention  that  it  should  have  any  bearing 
on  the  controversy  in  the  text." 

Mr.  Jones  here  poses  as  the  champion  of  the  'in- 
terests of  accuracy."  Whether  it  is  his  theory  or 
*' accuracy"  that  he  is  really  concerned  about  will 
easily  be  seen  when  we  examine  the  plain  evidence  of 
the  Bible  in  the  case. 

When  they  led  Jesus  to  Pilate's  judgment  hall, 


PENTECOST  227 

^Hhey  themselves  went  not  into  the  judgment  hall, 
lest  they  should  be  defiled;  but  that  they  might  eat 
the  passover'*  (John  18  :  28). — Then  they  had  not 
yet  eaten  the  Passover.  ^^And  it  was  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  Passover''  (John  19  :  14).  ^'The  Jews 
therefore,  because  it  was  the  preparation,  that  the 
bodies  should  not  remain  upon  the  cross  on  the  Sab- 
bath day  (for  that  Sabbath  day  w^as  an  high  day), 
besought  Pilate  that  their  legs  might  be  broken,  and 
that  they  might  be  taken  away''  (John  19  :  31). 
''There  laid  they  Jesus  therefore  because  of  the 
Jews'  preparation  day"  (John  19  :  42). 

On  the  day  after  Christ  was  buried  the  priests  re- 
ceived permission  from  Pilate  to  place  a  guard 
around  the  tomb,  and  Matthew  says  that  this  was 
on  ''the  next  day  that  followed  the  day  of  the  prep- 
aration" (Matt.  27  :  62). — Then  the  burial  was  on 
the  day  of  the  preparation. 

Mark  says,  that  "when  the  even  (of  the  day  of  the 
crucifixion)  was  come,  because  it  was  the  prepara- 
tion, that  is,  the  day  before  the  Sabbath"  (Mark 
15  :  42),  Joseph  of  Arimathea  obtained  the  body  of 
Jesus  from  Pilate  and  placed  it  in  the  tomb. 

Luke  says,  in  regard  to  the  day  of  the  burial,  ''And 
that  day  was  the  preparation,  and  the  Sabbath  drew 
on"  (Luke  23  :  54). 

We  have  now  the  positive  testimony  of  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke  and  John. 

All  these  passages  clearly  show  that  Jesus  was 
not  crucified  on  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of  the  Pass- 
over (which  was  the  Passover  Sabbath),  as  Mr. 
Jones  would  try  to  make  out,  but,  as  the  true  paschal 
lanihj  He  was  slain,  as  the  type  was  always  slain, 


228  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

on  the  day  of  the  preparation,  which  was  the  day  be- 
fore the  feast  of  the  Passover,  or  unleavened  bread, 
began. 

The  Passover  feast  evidently  could  not  begin  till 
the  paschal  lamb  was  slain.  The  preparation  day 
on  which  the  paschal  lamb  was  always  slain  was  the 
14th  (Ex.  12  :  6),  and  the  feast  of  the  Passover,  or 
unleavened  bread,  began  on  the  15th  (Lev.  23  :  6). 
This  was  a  Sabbath,  for  no  servile  work  was  to  be 
done  therein  (Lev.  23  :  7),  and  was  therefore  called 
the  Passover  Sabbath.  The  fifty  days  to  Pentecost 
w^as  alway  counted  from  the  morrow  after  the  Pass- 
over Sabbath  (Lev.  23  :  15,16).  Christ  died  on  Fri- 
day, which  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John  plainly 
state  was  the  day  of  the  preparation.  The  next  day 
(Saturday)  was  therefore  the  Passover  Sabbath, 
and  the  next  day  (Sunday)  was  therefore  the  day 
from  which  the  fifty  days  to  Pentecost  were  to  be 
counted.  Now  beginning  with  Sunday  and  counting 
fifty  days,  we  find  that  Pentecost  fell  on  Sunday. 

But  Mr.  Jones  tries  to  make  out  that  Friday  in- 
stead of  Saturday  was  that  year  the  Passover  Sab- 
bath, so  that  he  can  begin  with  Saturday  instead  of 
Sunday  to  count  the  fifty  days  to  Pentecost,  in  order 
to  make  Pentecost  fall  on  Saturday.  If  Mr.  Jones 
were  really  concerned  for  the  cause  of  accuracy  (in- 
stead of  his  theory),  why  did  he  utterly  ignore  the 
above  testimonies  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John, 
which  plainly  show  that  Christ  was  crucified  on  the 
preparation  day,  or  the  day  before  the  Jews  ate  the 
Passover.    Can  he  plead  ignorance? — Hardly. 

Mr.  Jones  bases  his  arsrument  on  the  fact  that 


PENTECOST  229 

Jesus  ate  the  Passover  with  His  disciples  the  night 
before  His  crucifixion. 

Jesus  said  to  His  disciples,  ^^With  desire  I  have 
desired  to  eat  this  passover  with  you  before  I  suffer'' 
(Luke  22  :  15).  This  then  was  why  He  ate  it  with 
them  before  His  crucifixion. 

In  John  13  :  1,2  we  read,  ^^Now  before  the  feast 
of  the  Passover  .  .  .  and  supper  being  ended," 
etc.  Here  John  refers  to  the  Lord 's  Supper — which 
Jesus  instituted  immediately  after  eating  the  Pass- 
over— and  plainly  states  that  it  was  before  the  feast 
of  the  Passover.  Could  testimony  be  clearer  than 
this? 

While  Jesus  ate  the  Passover  the  night  before  His 
crucifixion,  still  it  was  on  the  14tli — counting  from 
evening  to  evening.  The  paschal,  or  passover,  lamb 
was  to  be  slain  on  the  14th  (Ex.  12  :  6),  in  the  even- 
ing (marginal  reference,  ^^  between  the  two  even- 
ings"). 

In  Luke  22  :  7,8  we  read,  *^Then  came  the  day  of 
unleavened  bread,  when  the  Passover  must  be  killed. 
And  he  sent  Peter  and  John,  saying,  'Go  and  pre- 
pare us  the  passover,  that  we  may  eat."  Here  ^^the 
day  of  unleavened  bread ' '  is  identified  with  the  day 
that  the  ^^ passover  must  be  killed"  (therefore  the 
14th).  Also,  in  Mark  14  :  12,  ''And  the  first  day  of 
unleavened  bread,  when  they  killed  the  passover, 
his  disciples  said  unto  him,  ''Where  wilt  thou  that 
we  go  and  prepare  that  thou  mayest  eat  the  Pass- 
over?" And  again  in  Matt.  26  :  17  (R.  V.),  "Now 
on  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread  the  disciples 
came  to  Jesus,  saying,  where  wilt  thou  that  we 
make  ready  for  thee  to  eat  the  Passover?" 


230  -  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

Mr.  Jones  evidently  infers  tliat  the  day  referred 
to,  as  the  first  day  of  unleavened  bread,  was  the  first 
day  of  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread ;  but  it  is  here 
clearly  identified  as  the  day  on  which  the  Passover 
was  killed,  and  therefore  the  14th  (Ex.  12  :  6),  which 
was  the  day  before  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
began  (Lev.  23  :  5,6).  It  was  therefore  the  first  day 
of  unleavened  bread  only  in  the  sense  that  it  was  the 
first  day  connected  with  the  feast  of  unleavened 
bread ;  for  it  was  the  day  of  preparation  for  the  feast 
'of  unleavened  bread. 

'^ISTow  when  the  even  was  come,  He  sat  down  with 
the  twelve"  (Matt.  26  :  20).— ^' And  in  the  evening 
He  cometh  with  the  twelve''  (Mark  14  :  17).— ''And 
when  the  hour  was  come,  He  sat  down  with  the 
twelve''  (Luke  22  :  14). 

''Hour"  here  can  mean  the  hour  appointed  by 
Jesus.  The  word  ' '  even  "  or  "  evening ' '  is  indefinite, 
meaning  any  time  after  sunset,  and  does  not  pre- 
clude the  idea  that  Peter  and  John  were  sent  earlier 
in  the  same  evening  to  prepare  the  Passover.  The 
man  to  whom  Jesus  sent  Peter  and  John  to  prepare 
the  Passover,  doubtless  had  every  thing  in  readiness, 
for  Jesus  said,  "He  will  show  you  a  large  upper 
room  furnished  and  prepared"  (Mark  14  :  15),  and 
the  paschal  lamb  was  always  taken  up  on  the  10th 
'(Ex.  12  :  3),  so  that  it  would  require  but  little  time 
to  make  the  necessary  preparations. 

Now,  counting  from  sunset  to  sunset,  we  see  that 
the  preparation  of  the  Passover,  the  eating  of  the 
Passover  by  Jesus  and  His  disciples,  and  the  cruci- 
fixion could  all  occur  on  the  14th,  which  was  the  day 
"of  the  preparation,   or   "first   day   of   unleavened 


PENTECOST  231 

bread."  Tlius  we  see  that  there  is  no  contradiction 
in  the  fact  that  Jesus  ate  the  Passover  with  the  dis- 
ciples before  His  crucifixion,  and  that  the  positive 
testimonies  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke  and  John  ad- 
mit of  no  question  that  the  day  of  Christ  ^s  trial  and 
crucifixion  was  the  day  of  the  preparation  for  the 
Passover.  Hence  the  following  day  (Saturday)  was 
the  Passover  Sabbath  as  well  as  the  weekly  Sabbath, 
and  Pentecost  as  the  fiftieth  day  from  the  morrow 
after  the  Passover  Sabbath  would  be  Sunday. 

Moreover,  the  paschal  lamb  must  be  slain  on  the 
14th  day  of  the  first  month  (Ex.  12  :  6).  The  even- 
of  the  same  day  was  the  Passover  (Lev.  23  :  5),  and 
the  following  day  was  the  first  day  of  the  feast  of 
unleavened  bread  and  the  Passover  Sabbath  (Lev. 
23  :  6,7).  Christ  was  the  ^'Lamb  slain  from  the 
foundation  of  the  world''  (Rev.  13  :  8).  *'He  is  our 
Passover''  (1  Cor.  5:7). 

Christ  fulfilled  to  the  letter  every  type  and  shadow 
of  the  ceremonial  law,  hence  He  could  not  fail  to  ful- 
fil the  type  at  the  last  great  climax.  Therefore,  to 
fulfil  the  type,  Christ,  *Hhe  Lamb  of  God  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world"  (John  1  :  29), 
must  die  on  the  day  in  which  the  paschal  lamb  was 
to  be  slain,  and  on  the  evening  of  which  was  the  Pass- 
over. He  died  about  the  ninth  hour  (3  p.  m.).  Not 
a  bone  of  the  paschal  lamb  was  to  be  broken  (Ex. 
12  :  46).  ^'They  brake  not  his  legs  .  .  .  that 
the  scripture  should  be  fulfilled"  (John  19  :  33-36). 
If  the  type  must  be  fulfilled  even  to  the  very  letter  of 
the  bones  not  being  broken,  it  must  certainly  be  ful- 
filled to  the  very  letter  in  every  other  detail. 


232  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

We  read  in  Lev.  23  :  15,  *^And  ye  sliall  count  unto 
you  from  the  morrow  after  the  Sabbath,  from  the 
day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the  wave  offering, ' ' 
etc.  This  sheaf  was  the  firstfruits  of  the  harvest 
(verse  10).  But  this  sheaf  of  the  firstfruits  met  its 
antitype  in  Christ,  who  was  ' '  the  firstfruits  of  them 
that  slepf  (1  Cor.  15  :  20).  And  since  the  antitype 
must  fulfil  the  type,  it  must  of  necessity  be  that  the 
fifty  days  to  Pentecost  be  counted  from  the  day  on 
which  Christ  rose  from  the  grave  and  became  ^Hhe 
firstfruits  of  them  that  slept.''  This  would  bring 
Pentecost  on  Sunday. 

Pentecost  commemorated  the  giving  of  the  Law  on 
Sinai,  fifty  days  after  the  Israelites  were  come  out  of 
Egypt  (Exodus  19).  The  Law  was  given  on  Sun- 
day; for  the  Israelites  left  Egypt  on  Saturday  (as 
generally  accepted),  which  was  the  15th  day  of  the 
first  month  (Exodus  12).  They  came  to  Sinai  in  the 
third  month  on  the  same  (third)  day  of  the  month 
(Ex.  19  :  1),  and  on  the  third  day  after  (verse  16). 
or  the  fifth  day  of  the  month,  the  Law,  (Exodus  20) 
was  given.  This  counts  fifty  days  from  the  morrow 
after  the  Saturday  on  which  they  went  out  of  Egypt, 
and  hence  was  Sunday.  Therefore,  as  a  memorial, 
Pentecost  pointed  back  to  the  Law,  and,  as  a  type, 
pointed  forward  to  the  great  Pentecost  of  Acts  2, 
thus  linking  the  Law  and  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and,  in  a  sense,  giving  Sunday  the  recognition 
of  the  Law  on  the  one  hand  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on 
the  other. 

Was  the  fact,  that  the  giving  of  the  Law  and  the 
outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  both  occurred  on  Sun- 


PENTECOST  233 

day,  a  mere  coincidence!  God  has  a  purpose  in  all 
that  He  does.  What  purpose  can  be  inferred  ex- 
cept that  it  points  to  the  restoration  of  the  original 
Sabbath,  and  indicates  that  the  Sabbath  by  the 
manna  was  only  temporary. 

The  outpouring  of  the  gospel  of  Law  on  Sinai, 
fifty  days  after  the  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bond- 
age at  the  Exodus,  was  typical  of  the  outpouring  of 
the  gospel  of  grace,  fifty  days  after  the  deliverance 
from  the  bondage  of  sin  at  the  Resurrection.  Why 
did  Jesus  tell  the  disciples  to  tarry  till  they  should 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  Why  did  the  Holy 
Spirit  tarry  if  not  for  a  purpose?  and  that  purpose 
to  fulfil  the  sense  of  the  type. 

It  was  at  Pentecost  (on  Sunday)  that  God  opened 
the  mouths  of  the  disciples  to  proclaim  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  and  the  Resurrection,  thus,  by  precedent,  sanc- 
tifying Sunday  as  the  special  day  for  the  proclama- 
tion of  the  Gospel.  On  this  Sunday  Peter  preached 
his  first  sermon,  the  burden  of  which  was  the  Resur- 
rection (Acts  2  :  24-36),  thus  striking  the  keynote  of 
the  Gospel  message  that  was  to  be  carried  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth. 

It  is  only  the  Resurrection  Gospel  that  has  God's 
seal  upon  it  and  God 's  power  in  it,  and  that  can  con- 
vert the  world.  The  Resurrection  Gospel  and  the 
Resurrection  Sabbath  belong  to  each  other.  They 
cannot  be  separated.  God  blessed  that  Pentecost 
Sunday  in  the  conversion  of  about  three  thousand 
souls  (Acts  2  :  41),  thus  giving  a  firstfruits  blessing 
on  that  day ;  and  His  continued  blessing  on  that  day, 
above  all  other  days  of  the  week,  in  the  conversion 
of  souls  for  1900  years,  only  confirms  the  fact  that  it 


234  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

is  the  Sabbath  day  of  God's  appointing.  Could  the 
Christian  Sabbath  have  a  stronger  or  clearer  mark 
of  Divine  authority? 

The  Creation  reason  is  still  the  reason  why  it  is 
an  every  seventh  day  Sabbath.  If  the  Resurrection 
luster  can  thus  be  added  to  the  Creation  luster,  with- 
out dimming  the  Creation  luster,  God  surely  would 
not  fail  to  do  it. 

When  the  Jewish  dispensation  gave  way  to  the 
Christian  dispensation,  it  was  only  fitting  that  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  or  sign,  should  give  way  to  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  or  sign.  The  Jewish  Sabbath, 
as  the  memorial  of  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bond- 
age, can  only  point  to  the  Jewish  dispensation.  The 
Christian  Sabbath,  as  the  memorial  of  Christ's  vic- 
tory over  death,  and  of  our  deliverance  from  the 
bondage  of  sin,  can  only  point  to  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation. 


CHAPTER  XIL 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  :    DAVID — CHKIST — SPIEIT  OF  TRUTH. 


David's  peophecy  eegaeding  the  sabbath. 


**Tlie  stone  wMcli  the  builders  refused  is  become 
the  head  stone  of  the  corner.  This  is  the  Lord's  do- 
ing: it  is  marvelous  in  our  eyes.  This  is  the  day 
which  the  Lord  hath  made;  we  will  rejoice  and  be 
glad  in  it'^  (Ps.  118  :  22-24).  That  this  is  a  pro- 
phecy concerning  Christ  is  proved  by  Christ  in  quot- 
ing it  (Matt.  21  :42). 

In  Acts  4  :  10,11,  Peter  says,  ^^Be  it  known  unto 
you  all,  and  to  all  the  people  of  Israel,  that  by  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  whom  ye  crucified, 
whom  God  raised  from  the  dead,  even  by  him  doth 
this  man  stand  here  before  you  whole.  This  is  the 
stone  which  was  set  at  naught  of  you  builders,  which 
is  become  the  head  of  the  corner."  No  one  ques- 
tions that  ^Hhe  stone"  here  refers  to  Christ. 

When  was  Christ  set  at  nought  by  the  Jews? — 
When  they  crucified  Him.  When  did  He  become  the 
head  stone  of  the  corner? — Undoubtedly  on  the  day 
when  God  raised  Him  from  the  dead,  and  therebv 


236  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

accepted  and  approved  the  sacrifice.    Truly,  ^^TMs 
is  the  Lord's  doing:  it  is  marvelous  in  our  eyes." 
But  David  said,  ^^This  is  the  day  which  the  Lord 
hath  made;  we  will  rejoice  and  be  glad  in  it.'' 

There  is  but  one  day  that  is  in  any  sense  connected 
with  this  prophecy, — and  therefore  the  only  day  that 
David  oould  have  referred  to, — and  that  is  the  day 
of  the  JResurrection,  on  which  Christ  became  the  head 
stone  of  the  corner.  And  it  is  the  day  above  all 
others  in  which  we  should  rejoice  and  be  glad.  The 
Resurrection  is  the  reason  of  our  faith,  the  ground 
of  our  hope,  the  pledge  of  our  salvation.  ^^If  Christ 
be  not  raised,  your  faith  is  vain ;  ye  are  yet  in  your 
sins"  (1  Cor.  15  :  17).  Truly  then,  ^'This  is  the  day 
which  the  Lord  hath  made;  we  will  rejoice  and  be 
glad  in  it. " 

chkist's  testimony  eegakding  the  sabbath. 

Jesus  kept  the  Jewish  Sabbath  till  the  crucifixion ; 
for  He  came  to  fulfil  the  law  (Matt.  5  :  17) ;  and  He 
fulfilled  the  ceremonial  law  in  all  its  types  and  sha- 
dows ;  but  it  is  very  significant,  that  after  His  resur- 
rection there  is  no  account  of  His  honoring  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath  with  His  appearance  on  that  day, — 
which  is  unaccountable  if  that  were  to  Him  the  most 
sacred  day  of  the  week  and  therefore  the  most  suit- 
able day  for  giving  instruction  to  His  disciples  re- 
garding the  Kingdom  of  God. 

But  on  the  day  of  His  resurrection  He  appeared 
^ve  times,  and  again  ^  ^  after  eight  days, ' '  or  the  next 
Sunday — according  to  the  Jewish  inclusive  method 
of  counting  time,  i.  e.,  including  both  the  day  from 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  '237 

whidi  and  to  wliicli  the  count  refers.  (See  also 
the  similar  expression,  *^ after  three  days/'  in  Mark 
8  :  31,  which  refers  to  the  resurrection  as  ^' after 
three  days''  from  the  crucifixion,  and  must  include 
both  of  these  days,  for  the  crucifixion  was  on  Friday, 
and  the  resurrection  on  Sunday.) 

Adventists  say  that  Christ  kept  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week  Sabbath,  and  therefore  we  should  follow 
His  example.  Christ  also  kept  the  Passover.  Then, 
according  to  the  example  argument,  we  should  keep 
the  Passover.  But  Adventists  recognize  the  Pass- 
over as  only  a  Jewish  ordinance  pointing  to  deliv- 
erance from  Egyptian  bondage  and  ending  by  being 
fulfilled  in  Christ,  who  is  **our  passover." 

According  to  Deut.  5  :  15,  the  Jewish  Sabbath  also 
points  to  deliverance  from  Egyptian  bondage,  and 
is,  therefore,  a  Jewish  ordinance  ending  by  hav- 
ing its  typical  meaning  fulfilled  in  Christ. 

Christ  kept  the  Jewish  Sabbath  to  the  end  of  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  which  ended  at  the  cross.  And 
it  is  only  His  example  after  the  Eesurrection  that 
has  any  bearing  on  the  Sabbath  question  now. 

Christ  said,  '^  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy 
the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  till  heaven 
and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise 
pass  from  the  law  till  all  be  fulfilled.  Whosoever, 
therefore,  shall  break  one  of  these  least  command- 
ments, and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  least 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven;  but  whosoever  shall  do 
and  teach  them,  the  same  shall  be  called  great  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven." — Matt.  5  :  17-19. 


238  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

Christ  must  liere  first  have  referred  in  a  general 
way  to  the  whole  law,  moral  and  ceremonial,  for  the 
words  '*I  came  to  fulfiP'  necessarily  includes  the 
ceremonial  law  which  He  did  fulfil.  But  that  He 
afterwards  referred  distinctly  to  the  Ten  Command- 
ments is  evident  from  His  immediately  commenting 
on  several  of  them.  The  words  '  ^  shall  break, ' '  *  ^  shall 
teach,"  ^* shall  do''  are  future  in  sense,  and  were 
evidently  meant  to  apply  to  all  future  time,  and 
necessarily  refer  to  that  part  of  the  law  that  is  per- 
manent and  not  ended  in  Christ's  death. 

Purely  moral  laws  are,  by  reason  of  their  very 
nature,  imchangeable  while  time  lasts.  The  Ten  Com- 
mandments contain  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  moral  law,  and  are  therefore,  by  way  of  distinc- 
tion, generally  referred  to  as  the  moral  law.  The 
fixed  day  element  of  the  Sabbath,  however,  is  purely 
economic  in  its  nature,  and  therefore  cannot  be  a 
part  of  the  moral  law;  which  is  the  evident  reason 
why  the  Sabbath  law  does  not,  in  itself,  specify  what 
day  of  the  week  is  the  Sabbath. 

In  pronouncing  a  loss  on  those  who  would  not  do 
and  teach  the  commandments,  and  a  reward  on  those 
who  would  do  and  teach  them,  Christ  certainly  meant 
that  men  should  do  and  teach  them  to  the  end  of  time, 
and  He  certainly  included  all  of  the  law  that  was  not 
fulfilled  and  ended  at  the  cross.  He  made  no  excep- 
tion in  the  case  of  the  Sabbath  law,  and  there  is  no 
Avarrant  here  for  assuming,  as  some  (not  Advent- 
ists)  do,  that  it  was  fulfilled  and  ended  in  Christ.  Its 
moral  nature  is  plainly  seen  when  we  consider  the 
fact,  that  just  in  proportion  as  man  neglects  the  Sab- 
bath he  forgets  God,  and  just  in  proportion  as  he 


SABBATH  WIT I^  ESSES  239 

forgets  God  he  ignores  His  Law.  The  Sabbath  com- 
mandment was  put  in  the  very  heart  of  the  Ten  Com- 
mandments and  cannot  be  separated  from  them.  It 
was  only  the  manna  appointed  day  of  the  Sabbath, 
and  not  the  Sabbath  law,  that  was  abolished. 

Christ  said,  ^Svhosoever  shall  break  one  of  these 
least  commandments,  and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall 
be  called  the  least  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. ' '  Ad- 
ventists  freely  apply  this  censure  to  all  those  who 
do  not  keep  and  teach  the  seventh  day  of  the  week 
Sabbath.  They  should  beware  lest  it  applies  nearer 
home  in  their  perverting  the  meaning  of  the  Sabbath 
law. 

Christ  said,  ^^The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man, 
and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath"  (Mark  2  :  27).  We 
must  interpret  the  Sabbath  law  in  the  light  of  these 
words.  Man's  highest  good  involves  possible  con- 
ditions and  circumstances  which  are  not  necessarily 
fixed  and  unchangeable,  and  therefore  it  is  possible 
that  man's  welfare  under  certain  conditions  and  cir- 
cumstances can  best  be  served  by  changing  the  day 
of  the  Sabbath,  and  hence,  if  the  day  of  the  Sabbath* 
were  fixed  and  unchangeable,  the  reverse  of  Christ's 
words  would  be  true,  and  man  made  for  the  Sabbath 
and  not  the  Sabbath  for  man. 

Keeping  the  Saturday  Sabbath,  as  Adventists  do, 
under  conditions  that  make  it  a  yoke  of  bondage  both 
socially  and  commercially,  and  involving  the  keeping 
of  two  days  or  violating  the  civil  law,  is  certainly 
reversing  the  sense  of  Christ's  words. 

While,  in  a  general  sense,  the  highest  good  of  all 
requires  that  so  far  as  possible  all  keep  the  same 
day,  yet  economic  conditions  make  it  practically  im- 


240  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

possible  to  stop  all  work  on  any  one  day  of  the  week ; 
and  therefore,  because  ^^the  Sabbath  was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath,"  w^e  are  justified 
in  concluding  that  the  Sabbath  is  pliable,  as  to  the 
day,  to  the  necessity  of  the  situation.  Where  it  is 
absolutely  necessary  for  the  general  good  that  some 
do  not  keep  the  day  appointed,  it  would  be  according 
to  Christ  ^s  teaching  for  them  to  keep  some  other  day 
of  the  week,  but  all  should  be  allowed  to  keep  some 
day.  For  it  has  been  well  attested  that  a  weekly 
Sabbath  is  for  man's  highest  good — physically,  men- 
tally, socially,  morally  and  religiously — thus  prov- 
ing the  truth  of  Christ's  words,  that  '^The  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man.'' 

Christ's  statement,  that  ^^The  Sabbath  was  made 
for  man,"  is  a  recognition  on  His  part  that  the  Sab- 
bath law  was  a  law  of  man's  nature,  and,  as  a  law  of 
nature,  it  cannot  be  abolished.  In  the  next  verse 
(Mark  2  :  28)  Christ  says,  '^Therefore  the  son  of 
man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath."  Christ  here  as- 
sumes the  title  '^Lord  of  the  Sabbath";  and  he  gives 
as  the  reason  for  assuming  this  title,  the  fact  that 
*^The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man" :  and,  as  the  (one 
supreme)  son  of  man.  He  has  a  right  to  the  title.  He 
is  also  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  because,  as  the  Son  of 
God,  He  instituted  the  Sabbath. 

Christ  here  definitely  recognizes  the  Sabbath :  first, 
as  a  necessary  institution  for  man's  highest  good; 
second,  in  declaring  Himself  Lord  over  it.  Do  these 
facts  imply  that  the  Sabbath  law  was  abolished,  as 
some  teach? 

When  Christ  predicted  the  destruction  of  Jerusa- 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  241 

lem,  He  told  His  disciples  that  wlien  tliey  saw  the 
sign  which  He  gave  them,  ^^Then  let  them  which  be 
in  Judea  flee  into  the  mountains.  .  .  .  But  pray 
ye  that  your  flight  be  not  in  the  winter,  neither  on 
the  Sabbath  day.  For  then  shall  be  great  tribula- 
tion, such  as  was  not  since  the  beginning  of  the  world 
to  this  time,  no  nor  ever  shall  be''  (Matt.  24  :  16, 
20,21). 

The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  took  place  about 
forty  years  after  Christ's  resurrection,  and  there- 
fore Adventists  think  that  this  proves  that  the  day 
of  the  Sabbath  was  not  changed  at  least  up  to  that 
date;  for,  they  say,  Christ  must  have  had  in  mind 
the  same  Sabbath  as  existed  at  the  time  He  uttered 
the  words. 

But  had  He  in  mind  the  institution  or  the  day! 
If  the  Sabbath  was  a  fixed  unchangeable  day  He 
necessarily  had  in  mind  the  day;  but  if  the  Sabbath 
was  not  a  fixed  unchangeable  day,  then  He  neces- 
sarily had  in  mind  the  institution ;  so  that  their  whole 
argument  here  is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the 
Sabbath  is  a  fixed  unchangeable  day.  But  if  the  as- 
sumption is  untrue,  then  no  argument  can  be  based 
upon  it. 

Again,  had  He  in  mind  the  sacredness  of  the  Sab- 
bath day  or  the  safety  of  His  disciples!  Christ 
taught  that  acts  of  necessity  were  not  forbidden  on 
the  Sabbath.  Therefore,  if  it  was  necessary  to  flee 
on  the  Sabbath  to  save  their  lives,  and  in  obedience 
to  His  command,  it  could  not  in  any  sense  be  a  dese- 
cration of  the  Sabbath.  Besides,  the  exodus  of  the 
comparatively  few  Christians  from  Jerusalem  would 
have  been  a  proportionately  far  less  desecration  than 


242  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

was  the  Exodus  of  the  far  greater  multitude  of  Is- 
raelites from  Egypt,  with  their  ^'flocks,  and  herds, 
even  very  much  cattle.  ^ '  And  that  the  Exodus  from 
Egypt  was  on  Saturday,  Adventists  do  not  deny. 

Therefore,  he  could  not  have  had  in  mind  the 
sacredness  of  the  day.  Hence  He  could  only  have 
had  in  mind  the  safety  of  His  disciples.  It  is  evident 
that  He  had  their  safety  in  mind  immediately  before, 
when  he  said,  ^^Pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not  in  the 
winter."  Then  the  most  natural  conclusion  is,  that 
He  still  had  their  safety  in  mind  when  He  added 
'^neither  on  the  Sabbath  Day.'^  This  is  further 
proved  by  the  reason  given,  ^^For  there  shall  be 
great  tribulation,''  etc.,  which  shows  that  He  was 
thinking  about  the  tribulation  and  suffering  they 
would  necessarily  have  to  undergo,  and  therefore  He 
directed  them  to  pray  that  the  winter  and  the  Sab- 
bath might  not  add  to  their  suffering  by  making  their 
flight  more  difficult. 

But  how  would  their  flight  be  more  difficult  on  the 
Sabbath  than  on  any  other  day?  The  gates  of  Jeru- 
salem and  also  all  the  villages  through  which  they 
would  have  to  pass,  would  be  closed  and  guarded; 
besides,  traveling  beyond  the  prescribed  Sabbath 
day's  journey  (less  than  a  mile)  was  a  violation  of 
the  Jewish  law.  Their  flight  would  therefore  be 
more  noticeable,  and  they  would  be  more  liable  to 
suspicion  and  arrest.  If  their  flight  was  noticed, 
they  would  be  arrested  as  deserters  and  traitors. 
It  would  evidently  be  practically  impossible  for 
them  to  avoid  suspicion  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 

The  view,  therefore,  that  Christ  had  the  sacredness 
of  the  Sabbath  in  mind,  would  make  flight  on  the 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  243 

Sabbath  to  save  life,  and  at  His  command,  a  desecra- 
tion of  the  day,  and  thus  stultify  His  own  teaching 
when  He  said,  ^  ^  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and 
not  man  for  the  Sabbath.''  The  view  that  He  had 
the  safety  of  Flis  disciples  in  mind  is  natural,  rea- 
sonable, and  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  context. 

If  Christ  did  not  have  the  sacredness  of  the  day  of 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  in  mind,  then  His  words  were  in 
no  sense  a  recognition  of  the  sacredness  of  the  day 
of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  at  the  time  to  which  He  re- 
ferred; but  He  simply  used  such  words  as  His  dis- 
ciples, to  whom  He  was  speaking,  would  understand. 

In  the  same  chapter,  Christ  not  only  predicted  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  also  events  to  the  end 
of  time.  He  certainly  foreknew  that  the  Sunday 
Sabbath  would  practically  supplant  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath, as  it  has  done.  Now,  if  the  Sunday  Sabbatli 
was  to  be  the  ^^mark  of  the  beast"  and  the  greatest 
enemy  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and  if  its  supplanting 
the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  one  of  the  greatest  calam- 
ities that  ever  befell  the  Christian  Church,  and  if 
Christ  had  the  sacredness  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
particularly  in  mind  at  this  time,  as  Adventists  as- 
sume, He  would  surely  have  warned  His  disciples 
of  so  great  an  evil  as  the  Sunday  Sabbath  would 
have  been,  and  thus  have  prevented  them,  to  a  large 
extent  at  least,  from  being  deceived  thereby. 

Christ  foretold  events  of  less  importance — if  the 
Sunday  Sabbath  were  so  great  an  evil.  He  warned 
the  disciples  against  false  Christs,  false  prophets, 
and  false  doctrines  (verse  24) ;  He  surely  would  not 
have   omitted   any   forewarning   that   would   have 


244  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

tended  to  their  future  safety  and  welfare.  He  said, 
^'Behold,  I  have  told  you  before'^  (verse  25),  show- 
ing that  their  future  safety  and  welfare  was  the  pur- 
pose of  His  warning.  Thus  the  context  of  the  en- 
tire chapter  contradicts  the  claim  that  Christ  had 
in  mind  the  sacredness  of  the  day  of  the  Sabbath 
when  He  said,  ''Pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not  .  .  . 
on  the  Sabath  day." 

Christ,  as  Lord  of  the  Sabbath,  necessarily  under- 
stood the  true  meaning  of  the  Sabbath  law ;  and  He 
did  not  regard  the  Sabbath  as  a  fixed  unchangeable 
day  unless  that  was  the  true  meaning  of  the  Sab- 
bath law. 

But  we  can  safely  judge  that  God  did  not  leave 
any  vital  point  in  the  law  to  be  merely  inferred  or 
understood;  and,  since  otherwise  the  Sabbath  law 
does  not  make  the  Sabbath  a  fixed  unchangeable  day, 
we  are  justified  in  concluding  that  that  is  not  the 
meaning  of  the  Sabbath  law.  Therefore,  if  Christ 
had  the  sacredness  of  the  Sabbath  in  mind  when  He 
said,  ''Pray  ye  that  your  flight  be  not  ...  on  the 
Sabbath  day,"  it  was  the  sacredness  of  the  institu- 
tion, not  the  day  as  apart  from  the  institution,  that 
He  regarded. 

The  Jewish  Sabbath  was  according  to  the  Sab- 
bath law,  since  it  was  an  every  seventh  day  Sabbath, 
and  Christ  therefore  recognized  it  as  such  to  the 
credit  of  those  who  observed  it  as  such.  This  does 
not  disprove  the  fact  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  was 
also  according  to  the  Sabbath  law,  and  that  Christ 
also  recognizes  it  as  such  to  the  credit  of  those  who 
observe  it  as  such.  Nor  does  it  disprove  the  fact 
that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  was  ordained  of  God  at 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  '  245 

the  Resurrection  and  sanctified  at  Pentecost,  and 
that  He  meant  it  to  become,  as  it  has  become,  the 
universally  recognized  Christian  Sabbath. 

God  anointed  David  to  be  king  over  Israel  many 
years  before  Pie  removed  Saul  from  the  throne,  but 
He  began  immediately  to  bring  it  to  pass.  God 
passed  the  death  sentence  on  Adam  more  than  nine 
hundred  years  before  Adam  died,  but  God  began 
immediately  to  execute  it.  When  God  purposes  to 
bring  a  thing  to  pass  He  begins  immediately  to 
bring  it  to  pass,  suddenly  or  gradually,  as  best 
serves  His  whole  plan  in  all  its  manifold  bearings. 

In  the  case  of  the  Israelites,  God  purposed  to 
make  them  a  distinct  nation  and  to  prevent  them  as 
far  as  possible  from  mingling  with  other  nations. 
In  the  case  of  the  Christians,  He  did  not  purpose 
to  make  them  a  distinct  nation  but  to  mingle  them 
with  the  world  to  leaven  the  world.  In  the  first  case, 
a  sudden  change  of  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  would  evi- 
dently best  serve  the  end.  In  the  second  case,  a 
gradual  change  (as  regards  the  Jews)  would  evi- 
dently best  serve  the  end.  We  see  in  both  cases  that 
God  used  means  specially  adapted  to  the  end  in 
view. 

Many  of  the  Jews  accepted  Christ,  and  were  still 
zealous  for  the  ceremonial  law  (Acts  21  ;  20).  Christ 
commanded  His  disciples  to  ^^ Preach  the  gospel" 
(Mark.  16  :  15).  Acceptance  of  Christ  was  the  all- 
important  issue:  recognition  of  the  Resurrection 
day  Sabbath  was  a  secondary  matter.  The  first  was 
essential  to  salvation ;  the  second  was  not.  To  have 
ranked  the  Resurrection  day  Sabbath  question  as  a 


246  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

vital  issue,,  would  have  detracted  from  the  one  all- 
important  issue,  and  thus  largely  have  defeated  the 
real  purpose  of  the  Gospel.  It  were  better,  there- 
fore, to  leave  the  Sabbath  day  issue,  with  all  other 
non-vital  issues,  to  the  guidance  of  the  ^^  Spirit  of 
truth/'  who  would  gradually  lead  into  all  truth. 

THE   SPIKIT   OF   TEUTH. 

Christ  said,  ^  ^  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto 
you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now  (doubtless  be- 
cause their  prejudices  and  traditions).  Howbeit 
when  he,  the  Spirit  of  Truth  is  come,  he  will  guide 
you  into  all  truth." — John  16  :  12,13. 

The  Sunday  Sabbath  is  almost  universally  recog- 
nized throughout  the  Christian  world.  Was  this 
due  to  the  guidance  of  the  ^'Spirit  of  Truth"!  or  was 
it  not?  If  not,  then  Christ's  words  were  untrue.  If 
only  a  small  minority  of  Christians  were  led  by  the 
*^ Spirit  of  Truth"  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath  day,  and 
the  great  majority  led  by  the  Spirit  of  Error,  still 
the  words  of  Christ  would  be  more  false  than  true. 

• 

Adventists  are  constantly  asking  the  question, 
'Svhere  is  the  command  for  the  first  day  of  the  week 
Sabbath"!  We  ask,  where  is  the  command  for  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  Sabbath? — They  will  an- 
swer, ^^The  fourth  commandment."  But  that  is 
not  true.  The  true  answer  is,  ^^The  manna."  It 
was,  however,  to  the  Israelites  equivalent  to  a  com- 
mand in  that  it  made  the  seventh  day  of  the  week 
the  only  possible  Sabbath  to  them.  But  the  fourtli 
commandment  never  has  and  never  can  ^x  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath;  for  no  law  can  be  justly  enforced  be- 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  247 

yond  tlie  limit  of  its  strict  letter.  And  tlie  strict 
letter  of  the  fourth  commandment  plainly  does  not 
fix  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  since  any  day  after  six 
is  the  seventh. 

If  the  keeping  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  Sabbath 
was  a  vital  matter,  God  certainly  would  have  given 
a  definite  command  to  keep  it — or  the  equivalent  of 
such  a  command.  Such  a  command  would  have  made 
the  first  day  element  of  the  Sabbath  a  vital  issue  of 
the  Gospel.  The  absence  of  such  a  command  only 
proves  that  God  did  not  intend  it  to  rank  as  a  vital 
issue. 

Because  Jewish  Christians  did  not  immediately 
recognize  the  change  in  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  in 
the  absence  of  any  definite  and  positive  command, 
did  not  alter  the  fact  that  it  was  changed  in  God's 
purpose.  And  it  is  easy  to  see  the  wisdom  of  God's 
plan  in  bringing  about  the  recognition  through  the 
guidance  of  the  ^^ Spirit  of  Truth"  instead  of  by  a 
direct  command. 

This  was  true,  not  only  in  regard  to  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath,  but  also  in  regard  to  circumcision  and 
the  rest  of  the  ceremonial  law;  for  the  early  Jewish 
Christians  were  ^^all  zealous  of  the  law"  (Acts 
21  :  20,21). 

Adventists  admit  that  the  ceremonial  law  was 
abolished  and  nailed  to  the  cross  (Colossians  2); 
but  the  whole  ceremonial  law  was  observed  by  the 
Jewish  Christians  for  many  years  after.  If,  there- 
fore, the  observance  of  circumcision,  etc.,  after  it 
was  abolished,  does  not  prove  that  it  was  not  abol- 
ished, then  the  observance  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
after  it  was  abolished,  does  not  prove  that  it  was 


248  SABBATn      THEOLOGY 

not  abolished.    Adventists  cannot  consistently  deny 
the  latter  without  denying  the  former. 

God  did  not  abolish  the  Sabbath  as  a  memorial  of 
Creation,  but  He  abolished  it  as  a  memorial  of  the 
Exodus,  and  made  it  instead  a  memorial  of  the  Res- 
urrection. He  did  not  change,  or  abolish,  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Sabbath,  but  only  changed  the  day  of  its 
observance.  He  could  still  recognize  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  in  the  law  sense,  just  as  He  would  recog- 
nize any  other  every  seventh  day  Sabbath,  but  not 
in  its  special  providence  appointed  day  sense. 

The  Resurrection  was  the  greatest  providence  ap- 
pointing memorial  fact  of  all  time.  The  outpouring 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost  was  the  greatest 
providence  appointing  recognition  act — the  first  as 
the  reason  for,  the  second  as  the  authority  for.  God 
could  have  caused  these  events  to  have  occurred  on 
the  seventh,  instead  of  the  first,  day  of  the  week. 
But  the  fact  that  He  thus  honored  the  first  over  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  necessarily  gave  the  first 
day  the  higher  rank  in  receiving  the  higher  honor, 
and  can  mean  nothing  else  than  that  God  trans- 
ferred the  seal  of  His  authority  from  the  seventh  to 
the  first  day  of  the  week. 

The  Jewish  Christians  were  zealous  of  the  law 
because  they  believed  that  every  ceremonial  detail 
was  appointed  by  God;  and  they  did  not  recognize 
for  a  time  the  fact  (which  did  not  change  the  fact) 
that  they  were  abolished  in  Christ.  It  is  not  surpris- 
ing, therefore  that  they  were  slow  in  giving  up  the 
Jewish  Sabbath,  as  well  as  the  other  ceremonial  rites, 
in  the  absence  of  any  direct  command  annulling 
them. 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  249 

Still  there  is  strongly  implied  evidence  (as  will  be 
shown)  that  they  also,  in  addition  to  the  Jewish 
Sabbath,  observed  the  first  day  of  the  week  in  com- 
memoration of  the  Lord's  resurrection,  and,  there- 
fore, by  way  ©f  distinction,  called  it  the  ^^ Lord's 
day."  This  is  doubtless  the  origin  of  the  term 
*^ Lord's  dgiy,"  which  has  been  handed  down  to  the 
present  time. 

The  case  of  the  Gentile  Christians  was  quite  dif- 
ferent. There  is  no  evidence  that  they  ever  observed 
the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Paul,  the  apostle  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, firmly  resisted  every  attempt  of  the  Jewish 
Christians  to  fasten  the  ceremonial  law  of  Moses 
upon  them. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

SABBATH    witnesses:    PAUL — JOHN — LUKB. 


PAULAS  TESTIMONY   EEGAEDING   THE  SABBATH. 


At  Antiocli  in  Pisidia  Paul  ^Svent  into  the  syna- 
gogue on  the  Sabbath  day,  and  sat  down,  and  after 
the  reading  of  the  law  and  the  prophets  the  rulers 
of  the  synagogue"  invited  him  to  preach,  which  he 
did;  and  after  the  sermon,  ^Svhen  the  Jews  were 
gone  out  of  the  synagogue,  the  Gentiles  besought 
that  these  words  might  be  preached  to  them  the  next 
Sabbath.  .  .  .  And  the  next  Sabbath  day  came 
almost  the  whole  city  together  to  hear  the  word  of 
God."— Acts  13  :  14,15,42,44. 

At  Inconium  he  went  ^^into  the  synagogue  of  the 
Jews,  and  so  spake,  that  a  great  multitude  both  of 
the  Jews  and  also  of  the  Greeks  believed." — Acts 
14  :  1. 

At  Philippi  ^^on  the  Sabbath  (he)  went  out  of  the 
city  by  a  riverside,  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be 
made;  and  (he)  sat  down,  and  spake  unto  the  women 
which  resorted  thither." — Acts  16  :  13. 

At  Thessalonica,  ^^Paul,  as  his  manner  was,  went 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  251 

in  unto  tliem,  and  tliree  SabLatli  days  reasoned  witli 
tliem  out  of  the  scriptures. ' ' — Acts  17  :  2. 

At  Corinth,  ^'he  reasoned  in  the  synagogue  every 
Sabbath,  and  persuaded  the  Jews  and  the  Greeks.'' 
But  when  the  Jews  opposed,  ^4ie  departed  thence, 
and  entered  into  a  certain  man's  house  named  Jus- 
tus, one  that  worshiped  God,  whose  house  joined 
hard  to  the  synagogue.  .  .  .  And  he  continued  there 
a  year  and  six  months,  teaching  the  word  of  God 
among  them." — Acts  18  :  4,7,11. 

These  are  all  the  texts  where  it  is  said  that  Paul 
preached  on  the  Sabbath.  From  these  texts  Ad- 
ventists  count  up  eighty-four  Jewish  Sabbaths  that 
Paul  kept.  Seventy-eight  of  these,  however,  were 
during  the  year  and  six  months  that  he  remained  in 
Corinth.  But  most  of  this  time  he  preached  in  the 
house  of  Justus,  and  it  is  not  said  that  he  preached 
on  the  Sabbath  after  he  left  the  Jewish  synagogue > 
We  can  be  quite  sure  that  Paul  preached  whenever 
and  wherever  he  could  get  a  hearing.  This  will  cut 
down  their  positive  count  to  not  more  than  ten  or 
twelve. 

Paul  evidently  preached  in  the  synagogue  on  the 
Sabbath  because  of  the  hearing  it  gave  him ;  for  the 
Jews  and  Gentile  proselytes  congregated  there  on 
that  day.  If  he  had  gone  there  on  any  other  day 
he  would  have  had  no  audience  to  preach  to.  Paul 
evidently  would  have  done  as  he  did,  even  if  he  had 
no  special  regard  for  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  Hence 
there  can  be  no  argument  here  that  he  had  any  spe- 
cial regard  for  the  Jewish  Sabbath  in  so  doing. 
The  Jewish  Sabbath  presented  the  most  favorable 


252  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

opportunity  of  obtaining  a  hearing,  and  Paul  would 
have  been  wholly  devoid  of  tact  if  he  had  failed  to 
take  advantage  of  it. 

Moreover,  Paul  had  a  great  desire  to  win  the  Jews 
to  Christ  because  they  were  his  ^^  kinsmen  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh."  In  Rom.  9  :  2,3,  he  said,  ^^I  have 
great  heaviness  and  continual  sorrow  in  my  heart. 
For  I  could  wish  that  myself  were  accursed  from 
Christ  for  my  brethren,  my  kinsmen  according  to 
the  flesh.''  In  1  Cor.  9  :  20,22,  he  said,  ^^Unto  the 
Jews  I  became  as  a  Jew,  that  I  might  gain  the  Jews. 
...  I  am  made  all  thing  to  all  men,  that  I  might 
by  all  means  save  some."  And  again,  in  1  Cor. 
10  :  32,33,  he  said,  ^^Give  none  offense,  neither  to 
the  Jews,  nor  to  the  Gentiles,  nor  to  the  church  of 
God :  even  as  I  please  all  men  in  all  things,  not  seek- 
ing mine  own  profit,  but  the  profit  of  many,  that 
they  may  be  saved." 

We  see  that  Paul's  one  aim  was  to  win  souls  to 
Christ;  and  in  order  to  win,  he  was  careful^not  to 
offend.  Paul  kept  the  ceremonial  law ;  but  he  kept  it 
in  order  not  to  offend  the  Jews,  and  thus  cut  off  his 
access  to  them.  He  said,  ''Circumcision  is  nothing" 
(1  Cor.  7  :  19),  yet  he  circumcised  Timothy;  because, 
if  he  were  not  circumcised,  the  Jews  would  not  hear 
him,  *'for  they  knew  that  his  father  was  a  Greek", 
(Acts  16  :  3). 

It  must  also  be  borne  in  mind,  that  in  those  cities 
where  Paul  preached  in  the  S3niagogue  on  the  Sab- 
bath the  Gospel  of  Christ  had  never  yet  been 
preached,  and,  therefore,  there  were  no  Christian 
churches,  and  Paul  as  a  Jew  would  naturally  go  to 
the  synagogue,  and  on  the  Sabbath  day,  for  only  on 


SAEBATH  WITNESSES  253 

that  day  would  lie  find  an  audience  to  preach  to. 
These  were,  therefore,  Jewish,  not  Christian  as- 
semblies. 

The  question  is  not,  on  what  day  did  Jews  meet 
to  worship?  but,  on  what  day  did  Christians,  as 
Christians,  meet  to  worship?  Not  one  single  in- 
stance can  be  found  where  Paul  preached  to  a  Chris- 
tian assembly  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  nor  where  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  is  mentioned  in  connection  with 
Christian  meetings.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
are  instances  where  the  disciples  met  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week  to  hold  religious  worship. 

In  those  synagogues  where  Paul  preached,  we 
notice  that  as  soon  as  the  rulers  of  the  synagogues 
learned  the  nature  of  his  gospel  they  opposed  and 
persecuted  him,  so  that  he,  with  the  believers,  had  to 
withdraw  to  a  private  place  of  meeting.  Often  they 
had  to  hold  their  meetings  secretly  for  fear  of  the 
Jews.  More  than  once  Paul  had  to  flee  for  his  life, 
and  at  Lystra  he  was  stoned. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  was  manifestly  im- 
possible for  the  Christians  to  hold  their  meetings 
for  Christian  worship  in  the  synagogue.  That  they 
had  elsewhere  places  of  worship  is  quite  certain. 
1  Cor.  11  :  17,18,20,33 ;  1  Cor.  14  :  23,26,  and  Heb. 
10  :  25,  show  that  they  had  places  where  they  met 
for  worship.  The  Jewish  Christians  were  ' '  all  zeal- 
ous of  the  law"  (Acts  21  :  20),  therefore,  they  would 
continue  to  attend  the  Jewish  worship  in  the  syna- 
gogue on  the  Sabbath  as  required  by  the  Jewish  law. 
They  did  this,  however,  as  Jews,  not  as  Christians. 
As  Christians  they  evidently  met  by  themselves  in 
some  other  place  than  the  synagogue.    To  have  at- 


254  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

tended  all  these  services  on  tlie  same  day,  if  not  im- 
possible, would  certainly  have  been  very  burden- 
some. It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  they  met  for 
Christian  worship  on  some  other  day  than  the  Sab- 
bath. That  they  would  have  selected  for  this  pur- 
pose the  first  day  of  the  week  in  commemoration  of 
the  Lord's  resurrection  is  most  natural;  and  that 
they  ,  therefore,  called  it  the  ^'Lord's  day''  to  dis- 
tinguish it  from  the  Sabbath,  is  too  natural  to  ad- 
mit of  any  reasonable  doubt.  This  is  the  only  na- 
tural origin  that  can  be  given  for  the  term  ^^ Lord's 
Day,"  which  is  still  applied  to  the  Christian 
Sabbath. 

In  Acts  20  :  6,7,  we  read,  that  Paul  abode  at  Troas 
seven  days,  ^^  And  upon  the  first  day  of  the  week  when 
the  disciples  came  together  to  break  bread,  Paul 
preached  unto  them,  ready  to  depart  on  the  morrow ; 
and  continued  his  speech  until  midnight. ' '  We  notice 
first,  that  though  Paul  remained  an  entire  week  at 
Troas,  no  mention  is  made  of  the  Sabbath;  second, 
that  the  reason  given  for  their  coming  together  was 
^  ^  to  break  bread, ' ' — this  shows  that  they  would  have 
come  together  for  this  purpose  even  if  Paul  had 
not  been  there,  and,  therefore,  that  it  was  their  cus- 
tom. If  their  chief  reason  in  coming  together  was  to 
hear  Paul  preach  and  to  bid  him  farewell,  that,  and 
not  some  other  reason,  would  have  been  the  reason 
given,  in  which  case  we  might  regard  the  meeting 
as  a  special  farewell  meeting,  and  not  necessarily  a 
regular  weekly  meeting. 

The  ^^ breaking  of  bread"  undoubtedly  referred  to 
the  Lord's  supper,  and  not  to  an  ordinary  meal.    It 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  255' 

\ 

is  generally  admitted  by  authorities  that  the  early 
Christians  partook  of  the  ^^ Lord's  Supper''  every 
week.  We  would  infer,  from  the  disciples  coming 
together,  that  they  lived  in  different  parts  of  the  city, 
and  it  is  not  likely  that  they  met  regularly  to  par- 
take of  a  common  meal  together.  When  Paul  re- 
proved the  Corinthians  for  coming  to  the  *' Lord's 
Supper"  hungry,  he  said,  *^What?  have  ye  not 
houses  to  eat  and  to  drink  in  "I  (1  Cor.  11  :  22). 
So  we  conclude  that  the  disciples  had  houses  to  eat 
and  to  drink  in  without  coming  together  for  that 
purpose. 

*^And  they,  continuing  daily  in  the  temple,  and 
breaking  bread  from  house  to  house,"  etc.  (Acts 
2  :  46).  This  is  sometimes  quoted  to  offset  the  Troas 
meeting  by  showing  that  coming  together  to  break 
bread  was  a  daily  occurrence.  But  this  was  at  Jeru- 
salem about  one  thousand  miles  distant  from  Troas, 
and  about  twenty-seven  years  before  the  meeting  at 
Troas,  and  immediately  after  Christ's  ascension  and 
the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pentecost,  when 
the  disciples  in  their  great  enthusiasm,  looking  for 
the  immediate  return  of  their  Lord,  gave  themselves 
up  wholly  to  religious  matters.  They  sold  their  pos- 
sessions (verse  45)  and  had  all  things  common  (verse 
44) .  In  the  very  nature  of  things  this  condition  could 
not  and  did  not  last  long.  Therefore,  this  case  can 
have  no  bearing  on  the  Troas  meeting,  which  oc- 
curred in  a  distant  city  and  twenty-seven  years  later. 

Adventists  say,  that  as  this  meeting  was  at  night, 
and  as  the  day  began  at  sunset,  according  to  the 
Jewish  count,  it  must  have  been  on  Saturday  night, 
and,  therefore,  Paul  went  on  his  journey  on  Sunday 


256  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

morning;  thus  showing  that  he  did  not  regard  Sun- 
day as  a  sacred  day.  Even  if  this  were  true,  acts  of 
necessity  on  the  Sabbath  were  not  condemned  by 
Christ. 

The  Roman  method  of  reckoning  time  was  from 
midnight  to  midnight.  This  method  was  imposed  on 
all  countries  under  Roman  rule,  in  all  civil  matters. 
Troas  had  been  under  Roman  rule  for  one  hundred 
and  eighty  years ;  it  was  nearly  one  thousand  miles 
from  Palestine,  and,  therefore,  not  dominated  by 
Jewish  influence.  Luke  was  here  writing  to  Theo- 
philus,  a  Roman  living  in  Italy,  and  for  Gentile  read- 
ers; he  was,  moreover,  himself  a  Gentile  by  birth. 
These  facts  make  it  almost  certain  that  the  Roman 
method  of  reckoning  time,  from  midnight  to  mid- 
night, was  here  used ;  and,  therefore,  that  the  meet- 
ing at  Troas  was  on  Sunday  night. 

The    apostle   John,  also,  reckoned   time   by   the 
Roman  method ;  for  we  read  in  John  20  :  19,  ^  ^  Then 
the  same  day  at  evening,  being  the  first  day  of  the 
week. ' '    Here  the  evening  of  the  first  day  of  the  week 
is  reckoned  as  belonging  to  that  day.    We  may  go  a 
step  further,  and  state  that  the  Bible  always  recog- 
nizes the  natural  fact,  that  the  evening  is  the  end 
(as  the  word  implies),  not  the  beginning  of  the  day. 
We  can  safely  challenge  any  one  to  find  a  verse  in  the 
Bible  to  the  contrary.     The  contrary  view  can  be 
traced  to  a  misconception  of  the  expression  *Hhe 
evening  and  the  morning"  in  Gen.  1   :  5,  which,  as 
we  have  shown  (Chap.  I)  merely  proves,  in  the  re- 
verse of  the  natural  order  of  the  words,  ** morning" 
and  ''evening,"  that  the  Creation  days  were  indejfi' 
nite  periods.- 


SABBATH  WITls^ESSES  257 

In  Lev.  23  :  5,  we  read,  ''In  the  fourteenth  day  of 
the  first  month  at  even  is  the  Lord's  passover." 
Here  it  is  the  even  of  the  day  preceding :  a  recogni- 
tion of  the  fact  that  the  even  belongs  to  the  preced- 
ing day.  And  again,  in  the  thirty-second  verse,  ''In 
the  ninth  day  of  the  month  at  even,  from  even  unto 
even,  shall  ye  celebrate  your  Sabbath.''  Here,  not 
Gen.  1  :  5,  is  the  origin  of  the  "sunset  to  sunset" 
method  of  reckoning  time.  But  the  command  itself 
recognizes  the  even  as  belonging  to  the  preceding 
day  in  the  words,  "In  the  ninth  day  at  even,"  and  it 
would  not  change  the  sense  to  say,  "from  the  even 
of  one  day  unto  the  even  of  the  next  day  shall  ye 
celebrate  your  Sabbath."  Celebrating  an  institu- 
tion does  not  determine  the  limits  of  the  natural  day. 

The  word  "even,  or  "evening,"  means,  as  uni- 
versally recognized,  the  decline  or  latter  part,  and 
it  would  be  reversing  its  meaning  to  apply  it  to  the 
beginning  instead  of  the  ending  of  the  day.  Evi- 
dently, from  any  hour  of  one  day  to  the  same  hour 
of  the  next  is  a  day's  measure,  and  it  is  possible  to 
measure  time  from  any  hour,  but  nothing  can  change 
the  fact  that  the  natural  day  is  from  midnight  to 
midnight;  for  midnight  is  (with  regard  to  increasing 
and  decreasing  limits)  the  beginning  and  ending  of 
the  "light  which  God  called  'Day,'  "  and  the  Bible 
nowhere  contradicts  the  fact.  The  ' '  even  unto  even ' ' 
Sabbath,  in  connection  with  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week,  is,  therefore,  but  a  Jewish  institution. 

It  is  plainly  stated  in  Acts  20  :  7,  that  the  meeting 
at  Troas  was  on  the  "first  day  of  the  week."  Paul 
preached  until  midnight,  ready  to  depart  on  the  mor- 
row.   ' '  Even ' '  is  from  sunset  until  midnight.    There- 


258  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

fore,  Paul  preaclied  on  tlie  first  day  of  tlie  week  at 
even.  Now  compare  with  Lev.  23  :  5,  ^Hhe  four- 
teenth day  at  even/'  Lev.  23  :  32,  'Hhe  ninth  day  at 
even,''  John  20  :  19,  '^the  same  day  at  evening,"  and 
any  other  passage,  and  it  will  be  seen  that  ^^even"  or 
*^ evening"  of  any  day  is  always  the  end,  not  the 
beginning  of  the  day.  Therefore,  the  evening  of  the 
first  day  of  the  week  would  be  Sunday  evening,  not 
Saturday  evening.  Furthermore,  ^Hhe  morrow"  is 
the  day  after.  Hence  '^the  morrow,"  or  day  after 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  would  be  the  second  day 
of  the  v/eek,  or  Monday,  and  the  meeting  was  on  the 
night  before  ^Hhe  morrow,"  therefore  Sunday  night. 
There  is  absolutely  no  ground  for  the  Adventists' 
argument,  that  the  meeting  at  Troas  was  on  Satur- 
day night  and  that  Paul  departed  on  Sunday  morn- 
ing. The  clear  unmistakable  inference  in  the  case  is, 
that  the  disciples  regularly  met  on  the  first  day  of 
the  week  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

In  1  Cor.  16  : 1,2,  Paul  said,  *'Now  concerning  the 
collection  for  the  saints,  as  I  have  given  order  to  the 
churches  of  Galatia,  even  so  do  ye.  Upon  the  first 
day  of  the  week  let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in 
store,  as  God  hath  prospered  him,  that  there  be  no 
gatherings  when  I  come."  Dr.  Barnes  says,  ^^ There 
can  have  been  no  reason  why  this  day  should  have 
been  designated  except  that  it  was  a  day  set  apart  to 
religion,  and,  therefore,  deemed  a  proper  day  for  the 
exercise  of  benevolence  toward  others."  Dr.  Clark 
says,  *'The  Apostle  follows  here  the  rule  of  the 
synagogue.  It  was  the  regular  custom  among  the 
Jews  to  make  their  collection  for  the  poor  on  the 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  259 

Sabbath  day. ' '  Paul  has  already  given  this  order  to 
the  churches  of  Galatia  (verse  1).  This  collection 
was  for  the  poor,  and,  therefore,  an  act  of  worship, 
*^a  sacrifice  acceptable,  wellpleasing  to  God"  (Phil. 
4  :  18).  As  an  act  of  worship  it  would  fitly  belong  to 
the  regular  order  of  church  worship  on  their  days  of 
meeting. 

^'Let  every  one  of  you  lay  by  him  in  store,  as  God 
hath  prospered  him."  Adventists  insist  that  this 
would  involve  an  accounting  of  the  business  or  labor 
of  the  preceding  week  to  see  how  God  had  prospered 
them  during  that  week.  This  would  certainly  be  con- 
trary to  all  custom ;  for  the  end  of  the  working  week 
is  the  natural  and  proper  time  to  make  an  estimate 
of  the  result  of  the  v/eek's  work.  Paul  only  refers  to 
the  act  of  laying  by  a  due  part  of  their  week's  gain 
(doubtless  already  determined)  in  store.  The  in- 
ference is,  that  before  going  to  the  place  of  Christian 
worship  each  is  to  take  this  amount  out  of  his  private 
treasury,  and  store  it  by  him  in  readiness  for  the 
collection,  which  was  doubtless  part  of  their  wor- 
ship just  as  it  is  in  most  Christian  churches  today. 

Again,  Adventists  insist  that  the  literal  rendering 
means  to  lay  by  in  store  at  home.  Evidently,  the 
laying  by  would  be  at  home,  just  as  we  lay  by  at 
home,  before  we  start  to  church,  a  certain  amount 
for  the  collection.  If  what  they  laid  by,  according  to 
PauPs  instruction,  was  to  be  kept  in  store  till  they 
met  on  the  next  seventh  day  of  the  week,  then  why 
did  not  Paul  designate  the  seventh  (or  even  the 
sixth),  instead  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  to  lay  it 
by;  for  laying  by  a  gift  for  the  poor  and  putting  it 


260  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

in  the  treasury  or  collection  on  the  Sabbath,  would 
be  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  the  day,  and 
would  not  involve  any  appreciable  amount  of  time, 
or  interfere  in  any  sense  with  other  acts  of  wor- 
ship. 

Or,  if  each  one  was  to  lay  by  him  in  store  till  Paul 
came,  then  these  separate  contributions  would  have 
to  be  gathered  together  after  Paul  came;  but  Paul 
said,  *^That  there  be  no  gatherings  when  I  come." 
Then  these  amounts  were  to  be  gathered  together 
before  Paul  came,  and  the  most  natural  and,  there- 
fore, most  probable  way  would  be  to  put  them  each 
week  in  the  treasury,  or  collection,  when  they  met 
weekly  to  worship.  And  in  the  absence  of  any  other 
satisfactory  reason,  we  infer  that  Paul  designated 
the  first  day  of  the  week  because  that  was  the  day  on 
which  they  met  weekly  for  worship. 

This  conclusion  also  accords  with  the  known  prac- 
tice of  the  church  immediately  after  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  as  definitely  stated  by  early  Christian  writ- 
ers. Thus,  Justin  Martyr  (A.  D.  140)  in  his  Apol- 
ogy, Chapter  LXVII,  says,  *^And  on  the  day  called 
Sunday  all  who  live  in  cities  or  in  the  country  gather 
together  in  one  place,  and  the  memoirs  of  the  Apos- 
tles, or  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are  read  .  .  . 
bread  and  wine  and  water  are  brought,  and  the  presi- 
dent in  like  manner  offers  prayers  and  thanksgiving 
according  to  his  ability,  and  the  people  assent,  say- 
ing. Amen,  and  there  is  a  distribution  to  each  and  a 
participation  of  that  over  which  thanks  have  been 
given,  and  to  those  who  are  absent  a  portion  is  sent 
by  the  deacon.  And  they  who  are  well  to  do  and 
willing  give  as  each  thinks  fit :  and  what  is  collected 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  261 

is  deposited  with  the  president  who  succors  the  or- 
phans and  widows/' 

Paul  said  to  the  Corinthians  in  regard  to  giving, 
* '  Therefore  as  ye  abound  in  everything,  in  faith,  and 
utterance,  and  knowledge,  and  in  all  diligence,  and 
in  your  love  to  us,  see  that  ye  abound  in  this  grace 
also"  (2  Cor.  8:7).  Therefore,  giving  is  a  Chris- 
tian  grace,  which  Paul  classes  with  faith,  utterance, 
knowledge,  diligence,  and  love.  And  again  in  verse 
9,  *^For  ye  know  the  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for  your  sakes  he  be- 
came poor,  that  ye  through  his  poverty  might  be 
rich. ' ' 

* '  God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  his  only  be- 
gotten Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life"  (John  3  :  16). 
*^ Thanks  be  unto  God  for  his  unspeakable  gift"  (2 
Cor.   9  :  15).    Therefore,  giving  is  Godlike. 

' '  God  loveth  a  cheerful  giver  "  ( 2  Cor.  9:7).  *  *  As 
it  is  written.  He  hath  dispersed  abroad;  he  hath 
given  to  the  poor;  his  righteousness  remaineth  for- 
ever" (verse  9).  ^^He  that  hath  pity  upon  the  poor 
lendeth  unto  the  Lord"  (Prov.  19  :  17).  ^'Inasmuch 
as  ye  have  done  it  unto  one  of  the  least  of  these  my 
brethren,  ye  have  done  it  unto  me"  (Matt.  25  :  40). 
Therefore,  giving  to  the  poor  is  giving  to  Christ  and 
lending  to  the  Lord. 

Surely,  then,  giving  to  the  poor  is  an  act  of  wor- 
ship well  pleasing  to  God  and  in  perfect  accord  with 
the  spirit  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and,  therefore, 
rightly  a  very  important  part  of  the  worship  of  God 
on  the  Sabbath. 

The  only  consistent  reason  that  Adventists  can 


26'2  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

give,  why  Paul  designated  tlie  first  instead  of  tlie 
seventh  day  of  the  week  for  giving  to  the  poor,  is 
that  the  act  is  too  mercenary  in  its  character  to  be  in 
accord  with  the  sacredness  of  the  Sabbath;  but  giv- 
ing, as  an  act  of  worship,  is  a  ^^  sacrifice  acceptable, 
well-pleasing  to  God"  (Phil.  4  :  18). 

Paul  resisted  every  attempt  of  the  Jewish  Chris- 
tians to  place  the  Gentile  Christians  under  the  bond- 
age of  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law.  The  matter  w^as 
finally  settled  by  a  council  of  the  apostles  and  elders 
at  Jerusalem  (Acts  15). 

Circumcision  as  the  initiatory  rite  (thus  represent- 
ing the  whole  ceremonial  law)  was  naturally  the  test 
issue;  but  that  the  whole  ceremonial  law  was  in- 
volved is  shown  by  the  decision,  which  was,  ^^That 
ye  abstain  from  meats  offered  to  idols,  and  from 
blood,  and  from  things  strangled,  and  from  fornica- 
tion'' (verse  29).  We  naturally  conclude  that  all 
of  the  ceremonial  law  not  included  in  the  things  men- 
tioned were  passed  over  as  not  needful  to  impose 
upon  the  Gentile  Christians. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  impossible  to  conclude  that 
the  four  things  mentioned  in  the  decision  included  all 
of  the  law  that  was  necessary  for  them  to  keep. 
Hence  it  is  evident  that  the  decision  was  not  meant 
to  cover  the  moral  principles  involved  in  the  Ten 
Commandments,  but  only  the  ceremonial  law,  be- 
cause it  only  was  under  dispute. 

That  ^^ Moses  of  old  time  hath  in  every  city  them 
that  preach  him,  being  read  in  the  synagogue  every 
Sabbath  day"  (verse  21),  was  cited  by  James  as 
the  reason  Avhy  only  the  four  things  he  mentioned 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  263 

were  needful  to  insert  in  the  letter  of  instruction  to 
the  Gentile  Cliristians,  thus  implying  that  the  Gen- 
tile Christians  were  already  familiar  with  the  law 
of  Moses,  and  that  the  moral  precepts  were  not  under 
dispute. 

To  hear  the  law  of  Moses  read  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  go  where  and  when  it  was  read,  and  perhaps 
Gentile  Christians  often  went  to  the  synagogue  on 
the  Sabbath  day  for  that  purpose.  But  they  cer- 
tainly did  not  go  for  Christian  worship,  since  Jew- 
ish worship  and  Christian  worship  could  not  mix, 
and  Christian  worship  was  not  tolerated  in  the  Jew- 
ish synagogues.  If  not  for  Christian  worship,  then 
their  going  to  the  synagogues  on  the  Sabbath  day 
can  furnish  no  argument  that  Christians  met  for 
Christian  worship  on  that  day. 

The  fact  that  the  Holy  Spirit  witnessed  to  the  con- 
version of  the  uncircumcised  Gentiles  even  as  to  the 
Jews  (verse  8),  convinced  the  apostles  that  the  cere- 
monial law  was  not  binding  upon  the  Gentiles.  They 
would  naturally  conclude,  that  if  one  ceremonial  law 
was  not  binding  on  the  Gentiles,  then  all  were  not 
binding.  They  doubtless,  therefore,  drew  the  line 
between  Jew  and  Gentile  at  the  ceremonial  law. 

Now  as  the  Jewish  Sabbath  commemorated  the 
Exodus,  according  to  Deut.  5  :  15,  and  was  a  sign 
between  God  and  the  Jews  only  (Ex,  31  :  17),  the 
apostles  could  hardly  fail  to  recognize  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  as  a  distinctly  Jewish  ordinance,  and,  there- 
fore, not  binding  on  the  Gentiles, — especially  as  it 
was  well  known  that  Gentiles  (except  Jewish  prose- 
lytes) did  not  regard  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 

Owing  to  Jewish  hostility.  Christians  as  Chris- 


264  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

tians  could  not  worship  and  partake  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  in  the  synagogue ;  more  often  they  were  com- 
pelled to  hold  their  meetings  in  secret.  But  Jewish 
Christians  could  only  keep  the  Jewish  Sabbath  ac- 
cording to  the  law  by  going  to  the  synagogue  where 
all  the  Jewish  ceremonies  were  administered.  Evi- 
dently they  could  not  worship  as  Jews  and  as  Chris- 
tians at  the  same  time  and  place,  or  even  on  the  same 
day  without  slighting  one  or  the  other.  If  they 
slighted  their  Jewish  worship  they  could  not  be 
called  ^* zealous  of  the  law''  (Acts  21  ;  20).  If  they 
slighted  their  Christian  worship  they  could  not  be 
called  zealous  Christians.  The  only  possible  thing 
that  they  could  do,  and,  therefore,  did  do,  was  to 
worship  as  Jews  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath  and  as 
Christians  on  the  Christian  Sabbath,  in  which  no 
doubt  the  Gentile  Christians  (where  any)  joined 
them. 

Gentile  Christians,  as  Gentiles,  could  not  fail  to 
regard  the  Jewish  Sabbath  as  a  Jewish  ordinance; 
for  only  Jews  and  Jewish  proselytes  kept  it.  As 
Christians  they  could  not  fail  to  associate  the  day 
commemorating  their  Lord's  resurrection  with  the 
Gospel.  If  left  to  themselves,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
which  day  they  would  choose.  That  the  ceremonial 
law,  consisting  of  distinctly  Jewish  ordinances,  was 
not  binding  upon  them  as  Gentiles,  was  a  point  for 
which  they  had  always  contended,  and  which  was 
now  decided  in  their  favor  by  the  council.  We  can 
be  quite  sure,  therefore,  that,  unless  they  were  Jew- 
ish proselytes,  they  kept  only  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  or  the  Lord 's  day,  as  it  came  to  be  called.  The 
very  circumstances  involved  in  the  case  make  the 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  265 

I 
I 

conclusion  here  drawn  practically  unavoidable  to  a 
fair-minded  person. 

What  Christians  did  as  Jews  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  question  of  the  Christian  Sabbath.  It  is 
only  what  Christians  did  as  Christians  that  counts. 
Every  mention  of  a  meeting  on  the  Sabbath  was  in 
connection  with  Jewish,  not  Christian,  worship.  It 
was  manifestly  impossible  to  hold  distinctive  Chris- 
tian worship  in  connection  with  Jewish  worship. 

Paul  said,  **  Neither  against  the  law  of  the  Jews 
.  .  .  have  I  offended  anything  at  alP'  (Acts 
25  :  8),  and  ^*I  have  committed  nothing  against  the 
people,  or  customs  of  our  fathers''  (Acts  28  :  17). 
It  was  the  law,  and  custom  of  ^  ^  the  fathers, ' '  to  keep 
the  Jewish  Sabbath,  to  circumcise,  to  offer  sacrifices, 
to  keep  the  feast  days,  etc.  If  we  should  keep  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  because  Paul  as  a  Jew  did,  then,  for 
the  same  reason,  we  should  keep  all  the  rest  of  the 
ceremonial  law. 

But  Paul  tells  us,  that  unto  the  Jews  he  became 
as  a  Jew  that  he  might  gain  the  Jews  (1  Cor.  9  :  20). 
Then  this  was  why  he  kept  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  and 
all  the  rest  of  the  ceremonial  law;  for  he  himself 
taught  that  the  whole  ceremonial  law  consisting  in 
ordinances  was  abolished.  Thus  to  the  Ephesians, 
concerning  Christ  he  said,  ^^  Having  abolished  in 
his  flesh  the  enmity,  even  the  law  of  commandments 
contained  in  ordinances''  (Eph.  2  :  15).  To  the 
Colossians  he  said,  ^^  Blotting  out  the  handwriting 
of  ordinances  that  was  against  us,  which  was  con- 
trary to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nailing  it  to 
his  cross." 


266  SABBATH      THEOLOGY  i 

Because  the  Jewish  ordinances,  imposed  by  the 
ceremonial  law,  were  blotted  out  and  nailed  to  the 
cross,  Paul  says,  ^'Let  no  man,  therefore,  judge  you 
in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  to  an  holy  day,  or 
of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days.''  (R.  V. 
or  in  respect  of  a  feast  day,  or  a  new  moon,  or  a 
Sabbath  day.")  Paul  here  includes  the  Sabbath 
days  as  among  the  things  blotted  out  and  nailed 
to  the  cross.  Now,  if  *  ^  the  Sabbath  days  "  ( or  ^  ^  day, ' ' 
R.  V.)  here  refers  to  the  Jewish  weekly  Sabbath, 
and  the  Jewish  ordinances  are  what  is  abolished, 
then  that  settles  the  point  that  the  Jewish  weekly 
Sabbath  was  a  Jewish  ordinance. 

By  the  Jewish  weekly  Sabbath  is  meant  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  Sabbath  as  appointed  by 
the  manna  (not  the  fourth  commandment),  and 
which  (in  its  fixed  day  element)  commemorated  tho 
Exodus  (Deut.  5  :  15),  and  which  (in  its  fixed  day 
element)  was  a  sign  between  God  and  the  Jews  only 
(Ex.  31  :  17),  and  w^hich  was,  therefore,  a  distinctly 
Jewish  ordinance  in  its  every  feature. 

The  Sabbath,  in  its  every  seventh  day  element, 
commemorative  of  Creation,  and  appointed  by  the 
moral  law,  is  moral  in  its  nature  and  universal  in 
its  application  and,  therefore,  not  a  Jewish  ordi- 
nance. 

Adventists  holding,  as  they  do,  that  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week  Sabbath  was  not  a  Jewish  ordinance, 
but  was  appointed  and  fixed  unchangeably  by  the 
fourth  commandment  of  the  moral  law — which  in 
its  nature  could  not  be  blotted  out — are  forced  to 
take  the  position  that  Paul  referred  in  the  text  only 
to  the  annual  Sabbaths. 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  267 

There  are  fifty-two  weekly  Sabbaths  in  the  year 
and  (according  to  Adventists)  seven  annual  Sab- 
baths. Then  the  chances  are  more  than  seven  to 
one  that,  by  the  unqualified  term  ^'Sabbath  days," 
Paul  meant  the  weekly  Sabbaths.  The  references 
to  the  weekly  Sabbaths  in  the  Bible  exceed  those  to 
the  annual  Sabbaths  more  than  ten  to  one.  Then  the 
chances  are  more  than  ten  to  one  that  Paul  meant 
the  weekly  Sabbaths. 

In  view  of  the  overwhelming  importance  and  num- 
ber of  the  weekly  Sabbaths  over  the  annual  Sab- 
baths, the  unqualified  term  ^^ Sabbath  days"  would 
be  justifiable  if  he  meant  the  weekly  Sabbaths,  but 
not  justifiable  if  he  meant  the  annual  Sabbaths.  We 
must  then  conclude  that  Paul  meant  the  weekly  Sab- 
baths; unless  there  is  positive  proof  that  he  meant 
the  annual  Sabbaths. 

But  Adventists  say  that  Paul  states  in  the  next 
verse  what  Sabbaths  he  refers  to  when  he  says, 
^' Which  are  a  shadow  of  things  to  come,"  as  if  he 
]iad  said,  ^' Those  Sabbath  days  which  are  a  shadow 
of  things  to  come,"  hence  the  annual  Sabbaths.  But 
it  is  evident  that  ^^ which"  refers  to  the  entire  list, — 
meats,  drinks,  feast  days,  new  m^oons,  and  Sabbaths, 
— all  of  which  were  a  shadow  of  things  to  come. 
Besides,  only  with  this  view  does  the  grammatical 
construction  in  the  original  agree. 

The  word  ^^  Sabbath  "occurs  sixty  times  in  the 
New  Testament,  but  this  is  the  only  place  where  Ad- 
ventists say  that  it  refers  to  the  annual  Sabbaths. 
The  annual  Sabbaths  are  never  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament  referred  to  by  the  word  *^ Sabbath." — 
A  remarkable  exception  this!    We  might  well  ask. 


268  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

would  they  make  this  exception  if  their  theory  was 
not  at  stake? — Evidently  not.  Then  is  it  the  truth 
or  their  theory  that  they  are  really  concerned  about? 

^'A  feast  day,  or  a  new  moon,  or  a  Sabbath  day'' 
(R.  v.).  Note  the  order — yearly,  monthly,  Aveekly — 
and  compare  with  1  Chron.  23  :  30,31;  2  Chron. 
2  :  4;  8  :  13;  31  :  3;  Neh.  10  :  33;  Ezek.  45  :  17; 
Hosea  2  :  11,  where  the  same  order  (sometimes  re- 
versed) is  given,  in  all  of  which  the  word  ^'Sabbath" 
is  in  the  weekly  part  of  the  list.  Paul  evidently  had 
the  same  order  in  mind.  The  annual  Sabbaths  were 
undoubtedly  blotted  out  also,  but  they  belong  to  the 
yearly,  not  the  weekly  part  of  the  list,  and  are  al- 
ways referred  to  in  the  New  Testament  as  feast  days. 

Adventists  themselves  acknowledge  that  the  an- 
nual Sabbaths  are  included  in  the  annual  feast  days. 
Thus  J.  N.  Andrews  {History  of  the  Sabhath,  page 
86)  says,  ^'The  annual  Sabbaths  were  part  and  par- 
cel of  their  feasts,  and  could  have  no  existence  until 
after  the  feasts  to  which  they  belonged  had  been 
instituted. ' ' 

Then  Paul  necessarily  included  them  in  the  yearly 
part  of  the  list  when  he  said,  ^^Let  no  man  judge  you 
in  respect  to  a  feast  day  (yearly),  or  a  new  moon 
(monthly),  or  a  Sabbath  day"  (weekly) ;  and,  there- 
fore, by  *^a  Sabbath  day,"  he  could  have  referred 
to  nothing  else  than  the  Jewish  weekly  Sabbath.  The 
evidence  from  every  point  of  view  is  too  overwhelm- 
ing to  admit  of  any  reasonable  doubt. 

It  is  all  too  evident  that  the  real  (though  unac- 
knowledged) reason  why  Adventists  will  not  accept 
the  plain  self-evident  meaning  of  Paul's  words,  is 
that  they  consider  their  seventh  day  of  the  week 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  269 

Sabbath  theory  absolutely  infallible,  and,  therefore, 
PauPs  words  must  be  interpreted  to  harmonize 
therewith.  And  thus,  looking  through  their  infal- 
lible theory  glasses,  they  conclude  that  Paul  must 
have  referred  only  to  the  annual  Sabbaths. 

In  ^Eeplies  to  Canright'  (page  26),  referring 
to  Col.  2  :  16,  Eld.  Canright  (who  renounced  Ad- 
ventism  after  twenty-eight  years)  is  quoted  as  say- 
ing, **I  have  often  wished  that  this  text  was  not  in 
the  Bible,  and  it  troubles  my  Seventh-day  Adventist 
brethren  as  much  as  it  did  me,  say  what  they  will. ' ' 
To  which  Eld.  U.  Smith  replies,  ^^We  never  had  any 
trouble  over  this  text,  and  we  never  knew  a  Seventh- 
day  Adventist  who  had,  till  this  surprising  confes- 
sion. .  .  .  There  is  scarcely  a  portion  of  scrip- 
ture in  the  New  Testament  simpler  and  easier  to  ex- 
plain than  Col.  2  :  14-17. 

There  is  no  question  as  to  the  *^  simplicity"  of  their 
explanation  (simply,  Paul  meant  the  annual  Sab- 
baths), but  it  furnishes,  however,  one  of  the  most 
striking  instances  of  how  they  ^*Just  let  the  Bible 
interpret  itself.'' 

In  spite  of  their  denials  and  show  of  confidence 
(to  offset  their  doubts)  we  cannot  avoid  the  conclu- 
sion that  Mr.  Canright  was  right. 

We  read  in  Hosea  2  :  11,  *^I  will  cause  all  her 
mirth  to  cease,  her  feast  days,  her  new  moons,  and 
her  Sabbaths,  and  all  her  solemn  feasts."  Paul 
doubtless  had  this  prophecy  in  mind  when  he  said, 
^ '  Let  no  man  judge  you  ...  in  respect  of  a  feast 
day,  or  a  new  moon,  or  a  Sabbath  day."  The  words 
*^Let  no  man  judge  you"  can  imply  nothing  more 


270  '  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

tlian  tliat  the  former  fixed  day  ordinance  sense  of 
the  days  referred  to  is  no  longer  binding. 

^'Her  Sabbaths." — Adventists  argue  that  the 
Lord's  Sabbath  is  never  called  ^'her  Sabbath/'  and, 
therefore,  ^Mier  Sabbaths"  refer  only  to  the  annual 
Sabbaths.  This  is  only  a  mere  quibble.  Where  does 
God  call  the  annual  Sabbaths  ^'her  Sabbaths"?  How 
then  do  they  know  that  ^'her  Sabbaths"  mean  the 
annual  Sabbaths  I  The  Bible  speaks  of  *^my  offer- 
ings" and  ^^your  offerings,"  **my  sacrifies"  and 
**your  sacrifies,"  ^*my  house"  and  *'your  house," 
**my  law"  and  ''your  law,"  ''my  feasts"  and  "her 
feasts,"  etc.  In  each  case  referring  to  the  same 
thing,  though  referred  to  in  one  place  as  "my"  and 
in  another  as  "your"  or  "her."  There  is  then  just 
as  much  reason  for  regarding  "my  Sabbaths"  and 
"her  Sabbaths"  as  the  same.  God  said,  "I  gave 
them  my  Sabbaths."  They  are  thus  "her  Sab- 
baths" because  given  to  her  (the  Jews)  and  God's 
Sabbaths  because  appointed  by  him. 

Numbers  28tli  and  29th  chapters  specify  the  offer- 
ings appointed  for  the  whole  year  (daily,  28  :  3,4; 
weekly,  9,10;  monthly,  11-15;  yearly,  16-31  and 
29  :  1-39),  and  whenever  these  same  ordinances  are 
referred  to  in  the  same  order  (direct  or  reverse),  it 
cannot  fail  to  denote  the  same  distinction.  Thus, 
"her  feast  days"  (yearly),  "her  new  moons" 
(monthly),  then  "her  Sabbaths"  must  mean  the 
weekly  Sabbaths. 

Because  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  Sabbath  was 
only  observed  by  the  Jews  and  commemorated  their 
Exodus,  Paul  recognized  in  it  the  characteristics  of 
a  Jewish  ordinance  ending  with  the  rest  of  the  Jew- 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  271 

ish  ordinances,  so  far  as  the  Gospel  dispensation  was 
concerned. 

John's  testimony  kegarding  the  sajbbath. 

John,  in  Rev.  1  :  10,  said,  ^ '  I  was  in  the  Spirit  on 
the  Lord's  day.''  It  is  almost  universally  conceded 
throughout  the  Christian  world,  that  *^ Lord's  day" 
here  refers  to  the  first  day  of  the  week,  which,  if 
true,  would  show  that  the  first  day  of  the  week  was 
designated  by  that  term  by  the  apostles  themselves 
and  by  the  early  Christians  of  that  time,  and,  there- 
fore, that  the  term  *^ Lord's  day"  as  applied  to  the 
Christian  Sabbath,  today,  had  its  origin  in  the  time 
of  the  apostles. 

Besides,  the  term  *' Lord's  day"  can  be  traced 
from  the  present  time  back  through  history,  step  by 
step,  century  by  century,  to  at  least  the  second  cen- 
tury, and  without  exception  applied  to  Sunday.  In 
addition  to  this,  all  the  lexicons,  dictionaries,  and 
encyclopedias,  without  a  single  exception,  give  the 
same  testimony. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  John  here  referred  to  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week,  or  Jewish  Sabbath,  then  it 
is  the  only  instance,  either  in  the  Bible  or  in  all  his- 
tory, where  the  term  Lord's  day  is  applied  to  the 
Jewish  Sabbath. 

These  facts,  which  no  one  will  attempt  to  dispute, 
put  the  overwhelming  weight  of  evidence  on  the 
side  of  the  first  day  of  the  week  at  the  start;  for 
there  must  be  some  good  reason  for  all  this  one- 
sided evidence. 

Adventists  realize  that  their  infallible  seventh  day 


272  SABBATH      TEEOLOGY 

of  the  week  Sabbath  theory  is  here  at  stake,  and  with 
great  show  of  assurance, — to  supplement  lack  of 
sufficient  evidence, — vainly  attempt  to  prove  that 
John  referred  to  the  seventh  day  of  the  week.  J.  N. 
Andrews  {The  Sahhath  and  the  Law,  page  154)  says, 
* '  It  is  a  remarkable  instance  of  handling  the  word  of 
God  deceitfully  when  Rev.  1  :  10  is  quoted  as  though 
it  read,  ^The  Lord's  day,  which  is  the  first  day  of 
the  week.'  "  Has  Mr.  Andrews  any  better  right  to 
quote  it  as  though  it  read,  ^^The  Lord's  day,  which 
is  the  seventh  day  of  the  week"?  And  does  not  Mr. 
Andrews  quote  the  fourth  commandment  as  though 
it  read,  *^Six  days  shalt  thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy 
work ;  but  the  seventh  day,  which  is  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week,  is  the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God"! 
Thus  out  of  his  own  mouth  he  condemns  himself  of 
handling  the  word  of  God  deceitfully.  It  is  a  case 
of  *  ^  Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged.  For  with  what 
judgment  ye  judge,  ye  shall  be  judged"  (Matt. 
7  :  1,2). 

Again  (page  155),  Mr.  Andrews  says,  *^If  he 
designed  to  give  a  sacred  title  to  a  day  never  before 
designated  as  sacred  in  the  Bible,  it  is  remarkable 
that  he  did  not  tell  what  day  of  the  week  this  new 
day  was.  And  it  is  still  more  remarkable  that  when 
he  wrote  his  gospel  some  years  later,  and  had  occa- 
sion therein  to  designate  the  first  day  of  the  week, 
he  should  call  it  by  that  plain  title,  and  nothing  else. ' ' 

First,  If  the  term  ^^ Lord's  day"  was  here  used 
for  the  first  time,  there  would  be  some  reason  for 
John  to  designate  what  day  of  the  week  it  was,  but  if 
it  was  a  term  in  common  use,  as  it  evidently  was,  and 
well  understood  by  those  to  whom  he  was  writing. 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  273 

there  would  be  no  call  to  designate  what  day  of  the 
week  it  was.    So  Mr.  Andrew's  first  point  falls  short. 

Second y  In  John's  Gospel,  which,  as  Mr.  Andrews 
states,  he  wrote  some  years  later,  he  used  the  word 
** Sabbath''  eleven  times  and  the  term  ^' first  day  of 
the  week"  two  times;  so  if  it  is  remarkable  that 
John  did  not  use  the  term  *^ Lord's  day"  instead  of 
*^ first  day  of  the  week,"  if  the  first  day  of  the  week 
was  the  Lord's  day,  then  it  is  just  fiVQ  and  one-half 
times  more  remarkable  that  he  did  not  use  it  instead 
of  the  word  ^^ Sabbath,"  if  the  Sabbath  were  the 
Lord's  day. 

In  the  eleven  times  that  he  used  the  word  ^^  Sab- 
bath," no  definite  reason  can  be  given  why  he  did 
not  use  the  term  ^^ Lord's  day"  instead,  if  true,  for  he 
could  have  done  so  in  each  case  with  as  much  pro- 
priety as  in  Rev.  1  :  10. 

But  in  the  two  cases  where  he  used  the  term  ^^  first 
day  of  the  week"  (John  20  :  1,19)  there  are  good 
reasons  w^hy  he  did  not  use  the  term  *^ Lord's  day" 
instead : 

1.  It  would  have  been  historically  incorrect,  for 
he  was  narrating  the  events  of  the  day  on  which  the 
Lord  arose.  While  the  term  '^Lord's  day"  was  in 
use  at  the  time  John  wrote,  yet  it  was  not  in  use  at 
the  time  of  which  he  wrote.  Then  to  have  used  it  as 
if  it  existed  at  the  time  of  which  he  wrote  would 
have  been  an  abuse  of  language. 

2.  Turn  to  John  20  :  1  and  19,  and  substitute 
*^ Lord's  day"  for  *^ first  day  of  the  week,"  and  it 
will  be  instinctively  felt  that  the  term  ** Lord's  day" 
is  premature  and  unnatural,  because  it  is  so  plainly 
evident  that  it  could  not  naturally  come  so  quickly 
into  use. 


274  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

3.  Christ  predicted  tliat  lie  would  be  put  to  deatli 
and  rise  the  third  day  (Matt.  16  :  21 ;  17  :  23,  20  :  19). 
Now  in  recording  the  accuracy  of  the  fulfilment  of 
Christ's  prophecy,  John  would  most  naturally  and 
appropriately  name  the  day  of  the  week  on  which 
He  arose.  Thus  Mr.  Andrews'  second  point  falls 
short. 

Adventists  say,  that  the  terms  *' Sabbath  of  the 
Lord"  (Ex.  20  :  10),  ^'my  holy  day"  (Isa.  58  :  13), 
''Lord  of  the  Sabbath"  (Mark  2  :  28),  imply  that 
the  Sabbath  is  the  ''Lord's  day,"  and,  therefore, 
^'Lord's  day"  in  Eev.  1  :  10  means  the  Sabbath. 

It  will  be  noticed,  that  all  of  these  expressions  are 
different  in  form,  and  that  the  question  does  not 
turn  on  the  meaning  of  the  expression  "Lord's  day," 
but  on  the  origin  of  that  particular  form:  a  form 
which  is  never  elsewhere  used  in  referring  to  the 
Jewish  Sabbath.  Certainly  the  day  on  which  our 
Lord  rose  victorious  over  death  was  more  fittingly 
and  truly  the  Lord's  day  than  the  day  which  com- 
memorated the  Exodus  from  Egypt. 

Again  we  find  the  expression,  "The  day  of  the 
Lord,"  in  Acts  2  :  20;  1  Cor.  1  :  8;  5  :  5;  2  Cor. 
1  :  14;  2  Pet.  3  :  10,12,  which  clearly  refers  to  the 
end  of  time.  Adventists  make  no  attempt  to  apply 
this  expression  to  the  Sabbath,  yet  the  expressions, 
"Sabbath  of  the  Lord,"  "Lord  of  the  Sabbath,"  etc., 
imply  that  the  Sabbath  is  the  "day  of  the  Lord"  as 
well  as  the  "Lord's  day." 

Then  the  term  "Lord's  day"  does  not  necessarily 
refer  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath  any  more  than  does 
the  term  "daj^  of  the  Lord."    This  shows  that  each 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  '  275 

distinct  form  of  expression  lias  its  own  individual 
meaning. 

The  *^ Sabbath  of  the  Lord,"  in  the  fourth  com- 
mandment, meant  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath,  not 
a  fixed  unchangeable  day,  and  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath,  therefore,  was  what  Christ  meant  when  He 
said,  ^^The  Son  of  man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath." 
The  seventh  day  of  the  week  Jewish  Sabbath,  in  its 
fixed  day  sense,  commemorated  only  the  Exodus 
from  Egypt.  The  first  day  of  the  week  Sabbath,  in 
its  fixed  day  sense  commemorates  only  the  Eesur- 
rection  of  Christ.  Both,  in  their  every  seventh  day 
sense,  commemorate  the  Creation.  Hence,  in  the 
fixed  day  sense,  the  first  day  of  the  week  Sabbath 
only  is  the  true  *^ Lord's  day." 

The  fact  that  John  did  not  specify  what  day  of 
the  week  was  the  Lord's  day,  clearly  implies  that  it 
was  a  term  in  common  use  and  well  understood. 

Will  Adventists  now  argue,  that  the  day  which 
the  Jews  for  nearly  1500  years  invariably  called 
the  ^* Sabbath"  was,  in  the  time  of  John,  commonly 
referred  to  as  the  ^^ Lord's  day"? — Hardly.  Then 
the  term  ^^ Lord's  day"  must  refer  to  the  first  day 
of  the  week  in  recognition  of  the  fact  that  the  Lord 
arose  on  that  day. 

The  Christian  Jews  were  *^ zealous  of  the  law" 
(Acts  21  :  20),  and,  therefore,  kept  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath as  Jews.  This  necessitated  their  keeping  some 
other  day  as  Christians.  Manifestly,  the  first  day 
of  the  week  in  its  memorial  nature  was  the  most  suit- 
able day  for  that  purpose.  To  have  called  it  the 
Sabbath  would  have  caused  endless  confusion,  as  the 


276  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

Jewish  day  was  known  by  that  name;  and  to  dis- 
tinguish it,  they  would  most  naturally  call  it  the 
^'Lord's  day."  This  conclusion  is  too  natural  and 
self-evident  to  be  resisted  without  doing  violence 
to  the  sense  of  reason.  John's  using  the  term  in 
Eev.  1  :  10,  only  confirms  this  conclusion.  And  the 
uniform  testimony  of  the  early  Christian  writers, 
both  as  regards  the  Jewish  Christians  keeping  two 
days  and  the  application  of  the  term  *^ Lord's  day," 
still  further  confirms  the  same  conclusion. 

In  regard  to  the  Christian  Jews  keeping  two  days, 
it  is  only  necessary  to  notice,  that  evidently  Chris- 
tian worship  and  Jewish  worship  could  not  mix  and 
could  not  be  at  the  same  time  and  place,  and  that 
the  Jewish  worship  necessarily  occupied  almost  all 
of  the  available  part  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  so  that 
there  would  be  but  little,  if  any,  time  left  for  Chris- 
tian worship;  and  any  attempt  to  hold  both  Jewish 
and  Christian  worship  on  the  same  day  would  have 
proven  too  impractical  to  have  long  continued. 

Adventists  themselves  are  forced  to  admit,  in  view 
of  the  uniform  testimony  of  the  early  Christian  writ- 
ers, that  the  Christian  Jews  did,  in  a  manner,  ob- 
serve the  first  day  of  the  week,  though  they  try  to 
make  it  appear  that  it  was  not  in  a  strictly  Sabbath 
sense;  and  whatever  of  Sabbath  observance  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week  did  exist  in  the  early  church, 
they  attribute  to  the  influence  of  the  **man  of  sin," 
or  the  '* mystery  of  iniquity"  which  Paul  said,  *^Doth 
already  work"  (2  Thess.  2  :  3,7).  But  how  do  they 
know  that  it  was  not  due  to  the  guidance  of  the 
'^Spirit  of  Truth,"  which  Christ  said  would  guide 
them  into  all  truth  (John  16  :  13). 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  277 

Contrast  the  apparent  blessing  (only  apparent, 
Adventists  say)  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  first  day 
of  the  week  Sabbath,  beginning  with  the  Pentecost 
blessing  down  to  the  present  time,  with  the  apparent 
lack  of  blessing  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  Sab- 
bath, before  attributing  the  guidance  of  the  ^^  Spirit 
of  Truth''  to  the  ''Man  of  Sin."  Adventists  could 
well  hesitate,  and  ponder  Christ's  words  regarding 
''blaspheny  against  the  Holy  Spirit"  in  Matt. 
12  :  22-32. 

Some  others  (not  Adventists)  hold  the  view  that 
''Lord's  day"  in  Kev.  1  :  10  refers  to  the  end  of 
time  or  "day  of  the  Lord."  (See  Rome's  Challenge, 
pages  18-21.)  The  thought  being  that  John  was  car- 
ried in  the  spirit  to  the  end  of  time,  so  that  he  could 
look  back  on  the  world's  history  and  read  it  as  a 
book.  This  view  is  evidently  based  on  the  fact  that 
the  expressions  "Lord's  day"  and  "day  of  the 
Lord"  mean  the  same  in  a  grammatical  sense;  but 
as  before  stated,  the  question  turns  on  the  form  of 
the  expression,  not  on  its  grammatical  meaning. 

"Day  of  the  Lord"  (Acts  2  :  20),  "Day  of  Our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (1  Cor.  1  :  8),  "Day  of  the  Lord 
Jesus"  (1  Cor.  5:5),  Day  of  Our  Lord  Jesus"  (2 
Cor.  1  :  14),  "Day  of  Jesus  Christ"  (Phil.  1  :  6), 
"Day  of  Christ"  (Phil.  1  :  10),  "Day  of  the  Lord" 
(2  Pet.  3  :  10),  "Day  of  the  Lord"  (2  Pet.  3  :  12). 
These  eight  references,  all  of  which  were  written 
more  than  thirty  years  earlier,  refer  plainly  to  the 
end  of  time.  Then  the  expression,  "Day  of  the 
Lord,"  would  have  been  well  understood  by  those  to 
whom  John  was  writing  as  referring  to  the  end  of 


278  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

time,  but  a  new  form  of  expression  would  be  likely 
to  be  misunderstood.  It  is  almost  certain  then  that 
if  John  referred  to  the  end  of  time,  in  Eev.  1  :  10,  lie 
would  have  used  tlie  form  ^  ^  day  of  the  Lord, ' '  which 
he  knew  would  not  be  misunderstood ;  for  we  cannot 
suppose  that  he  wished  to  be  misunderstood  or  that 
he  was  even  careless  in  regard  to  making  himself 
understood. 

A  new  form  of  expression  almost  surely  indicates 
a  new  origin,  for  a  form  of  expression  soon  becomes 
inseparably  associated  with  the  thing  to  which  it 
refers,  and  thus  becomes  crystallized,  and  repetition 
and  habit  only  make  it  more  and  more  fixed.  There- 
fore, the  mere  fact  that  **day  of  the  Lord''  and 
''Lord's  day"  mean  the  same  in  a  grammatical 
sense,  does  not  argue  that  they  necesasrily  refer  to 
the  same  thing.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  differ- 
ence in  form  does  argue  a  different  origin. 

The  term  '^ Lord's  day"  cannot  refer  at  once,  both 
to  the  Jewish  Sabbath  (as  Adventists  claim)  and  to 
the  end  of  time,  or  ' '  day  of  the  Lord, ' '  and  there  is 
just  as  much  reason  to  refer  it  one  way  as  the  other, 
so  far  as  its  grammatical  meaning  is  concerned. 
^Vliich  fact  proves  that  the  question  docs  not  turn 
on  the  grammatical  meaning  but  on  the  form. 

The  voice,  in  Eev.  4  :  1,  said  to  John,  ''I  will  shew 
you  things  which  must  be  hereafter."  Then  the 
things  shown  were  to  John  as  in  the  future.  Hence, 
in  the  sense  of  the  text,  he  was  not  in  the  spirit  at 
the  end  of  time,  or  *'day  of  the  Lord." 

Again,  the  things  shown  passed  before  John  in 
succession,  not  as  if  he  were  at  the  end  of  time  and 
the  whole  scene  lay  before  him  in  one  panoramic 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  ^279 

,  yiew.  Hence,  Jolin  could  only  nave  been  carried  in 
the  spirit  to  the  time  of  each  event  in  succession. 
Therefore,  in  Eev.  1  :  10,  before  he  was  carried 
even  to  the  time  of  the  first  event,  he  could  not  have 
been  in  the  spirit  at  the  end  of  time,  or  **day  of  the 
Lord." 

When  we  notice  the  frequency  of  the  expressions, 
^'I  saw,''  ^'I  beheld,"  *^I  looked,"  ^^I  heard,"  etc., 
and  how  accurately  and  particularly  he  described 
the  things  he  saw  and  heard,  it  is  plainly  manifest 
that  he  was  present  in  spirit  at  the  time  of  each  event 
depicted.  But  he  could  not  have  been  present  in 
spirit  at  the  end  of  time,  and  at  the  time  of  any  one 
of  these  events,  at  one  and  the  same  time ;  and,  if  he 
was  carried  in  the  spirit  to  the  end  of  time  at  all,  it 
was  near  the  end  of  the  Eevelation  and  not  at  the 
beginning.  Therefore  ^^ Lord's  day"  in  Eev.  1  :  10 
cannot  refer  to  the  end  of  time,  or  *^day  of  the 
Lord." 

Following  this  up  by  the  practical  certainty  (as 
clearly  shown)  that  the  term  *  ^Lord's  day"  was  in 
common  use  when  John  wrote  Eev.  1  :  10,  and  that 
it  has  never  since  been  applied  to  any  other  day  than 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  and  is  still  so  applied,  puts 
the  conclusion  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt  that  he 
referred  to  the  first  day  of  the  week. 

LUKE  23  :  56. 

*^  And  they  returned  and  prepared  spices  and  oint- 
ments ;  and  rested  the  Sabbath  day  according  to  the 
commandment."  Adventists  claim  that  this  is  a  rec- 
ognition by  inspiration  that  up  to  the  time  it  was 


280  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

written,  some  years  after  the  Eesurrection,  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  on  which  the  women  rested 
was  the  Sabbath  according  to  the  commandment, 
and,  therefore,  the  Sabbath  of  the  commandment. 

Of  conrse  they  assume  that  the  Sabbath  command- 
ment fixed  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  and,  therefore, 
there  could  be  but  one  Sabbath  day  according  to  the 
commandment.  But  this  is  the  point  at  issue.  Tak- 
ing for  granted  the  sole  point  at  issue  is  not  argu- 
ment. 

There  is  no  dispute  in  regard  to  Luke  23  :  56 :  the 
only  dispute  is  in  regard  to  the  taken  for  granted  as- 
sumption that  Adventists  put  into  it.  Luke  23  :  56 
is  a  plain  statement  of  the  fact  that  the  women  rested 
on  the  Sabbath,  and  that  resting  on  the  Sabbath  was 
according  to  the  commandment, — a  fact  that  no  one 
thinks  of  disputing.  If  the  Sabbath  commandment 
did  not,  in  itself,  fix  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  then  any 
every  seventh  day  Sabbath  would  be  ^^  according  to 
the  commandment.''  The  sole  issue  under  dispute, 
therefore,  is  whether  the  Sabbath  institution,  so  far 
as  the  command  is  involved,  is  an  every  seventh  day 
institution  or  a  fixed  day  institution,  and  this  point 
has  already  been  fully  discussed. 

Luke  23  :  56  also  clearly  implies  that  the  women 
rested  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  because  as  Jews  it 
had  always  been  their  custom,  and  that  Christ  by 
His  example  taught  the  sacredness  of  the  Sabbath 
institution  and  gave  His  disciples  no  intimation,  be- 
fore His  death,  that  the  day  was  to  be  changed.  The 
Jewish  Sabbath,  as  an  every  seventh  day  sabbath, 
was  certainly  acording  to  the  commandment,  and  the 
women  certainly  rested  on  it  because  of  the  com- 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  281, 

mandment.  It  was  also  tlie  day  of  the  Sabbath  then 
in  force  by  reason  of  the  manna  appointment,  and 
the  only  Sabbath  that  they  as  yet  knew  anything 
about.  The  day  could  not  be  changed  before  the 
reason  for  the  change  (the  Resurrection)  existed. 
The  women  showed,  by  preparing  spices  and  oint- 
ments, that  they  had  no  anticipation  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion, and,  therefore,  they  could  have  had  no  antici- 
pation of  the  Sabbath  of  the  Resurrection.  But  Ad- 
ventists,  in  their  strained  effort  to  make  an  argu- 
ment out  of  this  passage,  assume,  that  if  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath  was  to  be  changed  at  the  Resurrection, 
these  women  would  have  been  duly  informed  by 
Christ  in  regard  to  the  change. 

That  Christ  gave  His  disciples  no  intimation,  be- 
fore His  death,  in  regard  to  changing  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath,  we  freely  admit.  But,  on  the  other  hand. 
He  failed  to  warn  them  of  the  change  which  He  cer- 
tainly foreknew  would  come  to  pass,  as  it  has  come 
to  pass.  Christ  warned  His  disciples,  in  Matthew 
24,  of  less  important  evils,  if  the  change  in  the  day 
of  the  Sabbath  was  so  great  an  evil  as  Adventists 
think. 

If  the  change  in  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  in  no 
sense  affected  the  Sabbath  commandment,  and  if  it 
was  best  for  the  change  to  be  brought  about  by  the 
guidance  of  the  ^^ Spirit  of  Truth,"  which  Christ 
promised  would  lead  them  into  all  truth,  then  there 
was  no  occasion  for  Christ  to  give  the  disciples  any; 
instructions  in  regard  to  the  change. 

The  fact  that  Christ  gave  neither  instruction  nor 
warning  in  regard  to  the  change  in  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  is  strong  evidence  that  He  did  not  hold  the 


282  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Adventist  view, — that  tlie  Sabbatli  commandment 
fixed  the  day  of  the  Sabbath.  Otherwise;  there 
woukl  have  been  need  of  instruction  or  warning,  and 
He  doubtless  would  have  given  one  or  the  other,  as 
the  case  required. 

If  the  Sabbath  law  did  not  fix  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath, then  Christ  could  not  give  a  command  chang- 
ing the  day  without  giving  a  false  interpretation  of 
the  Sabbath  law;  for  such  a  command  would  be  an 
acknowledgment  that  the  Sabbath  laAV  fixed  the  day 
of  the  Sabbath.  Moreover,  such  a  command  would 
have  ranked  the  fixed  day,  or  economic,  element  of 
the  Sabbath  as  a  moral  element,  which,  if  not  a 
moral  element,  Christ  had  no  intention  of  thus  rank- 
ing it  as  such. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

SABBATH  witnesses:    eaely  christia:^^  writers. 

These  are  not  given  to  establish  a  doctrine,  for 
many  false  doctrines  existed  among  Christians  even 
in  the  time  of  the  apostles  (Tit.  1  :  10-16;  1  John 
4  :  13),  but  simply  to  prove  the  fact  that  the  early 
Christians  kept  the  Sunday  Sabbath,  or  Lord^s  day.'' 

A.  D.  107. — Pliny's  Letter  to  the  Emperor  Tra- 
jan concerning  the  Christians  says,  ^^They  were 
wont  to  meet  together,  on  stated  days,  before  it  was 
light,  and  sang  among  themselves  alternately  a  hymn 
to  Christ  as  God." — Home's  Introduction,  Vol.  I, 
Cliap.  3,  Sec.  2,  p.  84. 

Adventists  say  that  this  proves  nothing  because 
the  day  is  not  named.  But  the  inference  is  too  strong 
to  be  ignored.  Why  did  they  sing  hymns  to  Christ 
as  God  if  they  had  not  met  to  worship  Christ?  Why 
did  they  meet  before  it  was  light"  if  not  to  com- 
memorate His  resurrection?  And  on  what  day  would 
they  meet  to  commemorate  His  resurrection,  which 
occurred  on  Sunday  before  it  was  light.  The  rejec- 
tion of  such  unmistakable  inference  cannot  be  in  the 


284  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

interest  of  trntli,  but  in  tlie  interest  of  tlieory.  TMs 
testimony  was  written  only  eleven  years  after  John 
wrote  Rev.  1  :  10,  ^'I  was  in  the  spirit  on  the  Lord's 
day. ' ' 

A.  D.  120. — The  Epistle  of  Baknabas,  which  is 
found  in  the  oldest  manuscript  of  the  Scriptures  and 
supposed  to  have  been  written  between  107  and  126 
A.  D.,  says,  *^  Wherefore,  also,  we  keep  the  eighth 
day  with  joyfulness,  the  day,  also,  on  which  Jesus 
rose  again  from  the  dead.'' — Chap.  15.  This  was 
written  about  twenty-four  years  after  John  wrote 
Rev.  1  :  10. 

A.  D.  125. — The  Teaching  of  the  Apostles  (not 
written  by  the  apostles).  Chapter  14  says,  ^^But 
every  Lord's  day  do  ye  gather  yourselves  together, 
and  break  bread,  and  give  thanksgiving. ' '  This  was 
written  probably  about  thirty  years  after  John  wrote 
Rev.  1  :  10,  and,  taken  in  connection  with  the  other 
testimonies  identifies  the  Lord's  day  with  Sunday. 
It  also  harmonizes  with  Acts  20  :  7. 

A.  D.  140. — Justin  Maetyr,  in  his  first  defence, 
or  * 'Apology,"  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Antonius 
Verus,  Chapter  67,  says,  ''And  on  the  day  called 
Sunday,  all  Vv^ho  live  in  cities  or  in  the  country  gather 
together  in  one  place,  and  the  memoirs  of  the  apos- 
tles or  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are  read  as  long 
as  time  permits. ' '  "And  they  who  are  well  to  do  and 
willing  give  what  each  thinks  fit,  and  what  is  col- 
lected is  deposited  with  the  president  who  succors 
the  orphans  and  widows." 

A.  D.  170. — DiONYsius,  Bishop  of  Corinth  in 
Greece,  "We  passed  this  holy  Lord's  day,  in  which 
we   read  your  letter." — Eusehius'   Eccl.   History, 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  285 

Book  4,  Chap.  23.  1  Cor.  16  :  1,2,  concerning  collec- 
tions on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  was  written  to 
this  church. 

A.  D.  194. — Clement  of  Alexandkia  (Egypt). 
"Pie,  in  fulfilment  of  the  precept,  keeps  the  Lord's 
day  when  he  abandons  an  evil  disposition,  and  as- 
sumes that  of  the  Gnostic,  glorifying  the  Lord's 
Resurrection  in  himself." — Book  VII,  Chap.  12. 

A.  D.  200. — Tertullian  of  Africa,  *'We  solemize 
the  day  after  Saturday  in  contradiction  to  those  who 
call  this  day  their  Sabbath." — Tertullian^s  Apology, 
Chapter  16,  "We,  however  (just  as  we  have  re- 
ceived), only  on  the  day  of  the  Lord's  Resurrection 
ought  to  guard  not  only  against  kneeling,  but  every 
posture  and  office  of  solicitude;  deferring  even  our 
business,  lest  we  give  any  place  to  the  devil." — 
Tertullian  on  Prayer,  Chap.  23. 

A.  D.  225.— Oeigen  of  Egypt,  "If  it  be  objected 
to  us  on  this  subject  that  we  ourselves  are  accus- 
tomed to  observe  certain  days,  as,  for  example,  the 
Lord's  day." — Origen  against  Celsus,  Book  VII, 
Chap.  22. 

A.  D.  250. — The  Apostolic  Constitutions.  "And 
on  the  day  of  our  Lord's  Resurrection,  which  is  the 
Lord's  day,  meet  more  diligently,  sending  praise  to 
God."  "Otherwise  what  apology  will  he  make  to 
God,  who  does  not  assemble  on  that  day  to  hear  the 
saving  word  concerning  the  Resurrection." — Sec.  7, 
par.  59.  "On  the  day  of  the  Resurrection  of  the 
Lord,  that  is  the  Lord's  day,  assemble  yourselves  to- 
gether, without  fail,  giving  thanks  to  God."  "On 
which  account  we  solemnly  assemble  to  celebrate  the 
feast  of  the  Resurrection  on  the  Lord's  day." — Book 
VII,  Sec.  2,  par.  30. 


286  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

A.  D.  270. — AnatoliuSj  Bishop  of  Laodicea,  Asia. 
*^The  solemn  festival  of  the  Eesurrection  of  the 
Lord  can  be  celebrated  only  on  the  Lord's  day.'' — 
Tenth  Canon.  ^'Our  regard  for  the  Lord's  Eesur- 
rection which  took  place  on  the  Lord's  day  will  lead 
lis  to  celebrate  it  on  the  same  principle." — Sixteenth 
Canon, 

A.  D.  300. — ViCTOEiNus,  Bishop  of  Petau.  ^^On  the 
Lord's  day  we  go  forth  to  our  bread  with  giving  of 
thanks.  And  let  the  parasceve  become  a  rigorous 
fast  lest  we  should  appear  to  observe  any  Sabbath 
with  the  Jews,  which  Christ  himself,  the  Lord  of  the 
Sabbath,  says  by  his  prophets  that  his  soul  liateth, 
which  Sabbath  he  in  his  body  abolished." — Creation 
of  the  World,  Sec.  4. 

A.  D.  306. — Petek,  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  ^^But 
the  Lord's  day  we  celebrate  as  a  day  of  joy  because 
on  it  He  rose  again,"  Canon  15. 

A.  D.  324. — EusEBius,  Bishop  of  Csesarea,  Pales- 
tine, who  is  called  the  *^ Father  of  Church  History," 
speaking  of  a  small  Judaizing  sect  who  kept  the  Sab- 
bath, says,  that  they  are  ''those  who  cherish  low  and 
mean  opinions  of  Christians."  "With  them  the  ob- 
servance of  the  law  was  altogether  necessary,  as  if 
they  could  not  be  saved  only  by  faith  in  Christ  and  a 
corresponding  life."  "They  also  observe  the  Sab- 
bath and  other  discipline  of  the  Jews  just  like  them, 
but  on  the  other  hand  they  also  celebrated  the  Lord 's 
day  very  much  like  us  in  commemoration  of  His 
Eesurrection." — Eccl.  Hist.,  pages  112-113. 

"On  this  day  which  is  the  first  of  light  and  of  the 
true  sun  we  assemble  after  an  interval  of  six  days 
and  celebrate  holy  and  spiritual  Sabbaths,  even  all 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  287 

nations  redeemed  by  him  throughout  the  world,  and 
do  those  things  according  to  the  spiritual  law  which 
are  decreed  for  the  priests  to  do  on  the  Sabbath." 
**And  all  things  whatsoever  that  it  was  the  duty  to 
do  on  the  Sabbath,  these  we  have  transferred  to  the 
Lord's  day  as  more  honorable  than  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath/'— Quoted  in  Justin  Edwards  Sabbath  Manual, 
pages  126  and  127. 

*^The  universal  and  uncontradicted  Sunday  ob- 
servance in  the  second  century  can  only  be  explained 
by  the  fact  that  it  had  its  roots  in  apostolic  practice." 
— History  of  the  Christian  Church,  by  Dr.  Schaff, 
Vol.  I,  p.  478. 

*^For  a  time  the  Jewish  converts  observed  both 
the  seventh  day,  to  which  the  name  Sabbath  contin- 
ued to  be  given  exclusively,  and  the  first  day,  which 
came  to  be  called  the  Lord's  day."  ^^ Within  a  cen- 
tury after  the  death  of  the  last  apostles  we  find  the 
observance  of  the  first  day  of  the  week,  under  the 
name  of  the  Lord's  day,  established  as  a  universal 
custom  of  the  church." — Johnson's  New  Universal 
Cyclopaedia,  Art.  Sabbath. 

^^In  the  second  century  its  (Sunday)  observance 
was  universal."  ''The  Jewish  Christians  ceased  to 
observe  the  Sabbath  after  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
salem."— Schaff,  Herzog  Ency.  Art.  Sunday. 

''The  Lord's  day  existed  during  these  two  cen- 
turies as  a  part  and  parcel  of  apostolical,  and  so  of 
Scriptural  Christianity.  It  was  never  defended;  for 
it  was  never  impugned,  or  at  least  only  impugned  as 
were  other  things  received  from  the  apostles." — 
Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Art.,  Lord's  Day. 


288  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

Adventists  throw  as  much  discredit  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  early  Christian  writers  as  possible. 
Hence  any  admission  from  them  as  to  their  genuine- 
ness may  be  taken  as  conclusive.  Andrews,  who  is 
acknowledged  to  be  their  ablest  historian,  makes  the 
following  admissions : — 

Concerning  the  writing  of  Barnabas,  he  says,  that 
it  *'was  in  existence  as  early  as  the  middle  of  the 
second  century,  and,  like  the  *  Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions,' is  of  value  to  us  in  that  it  gives  some  clue  to 
the  opinions  which  prevailed  in  the  region  where  the 
writer  lived  ...  he  presently  asserts  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  Sabbath.'' — Testimony  of  the  Fathers, 
pages  21,  22. 

Concerning  Justin  Martyr,  he  says,  **It  does  not 
appear  that  Justin,  and  those  at  Rome  who  held  with 
him  in  doctrine,  paid  the  slightest  regard  to  the  an- 
cient Sabbath.  He  speakes  of  it  as  abolished,  and 
treats  it  v/ith  contempt."  "We  must,  therefore,  pro- 
nounce Justin  a  man  who  held  the  abrogation  of  the 
ten  commandments,  and  that  the  Sabbath  was  a  Jew- 
ish institution  which  was  unknown  before  Moses  and 
of  no  authority  since  Christ.  He  held  Sunday  to  be 
the  most  suitable  day  for  public  worship." — Testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers,  pages  33,  44. 

Mr.  Andrews  thus  practically  acknowledges  the 
genuineness  of  the  testimony  of  Barnabas  (A.  D. 
120,  or  24  years  after  John  wrote  Rev.  1  :  10),  and  of 
Justin  Martyr  (A.  D.  140,  or  44  years  after  John 
wrote  Rev.  1  :  10),  and  the  '^Apostolic  Constitu- 
tions" (A.  D.  250,  or  114  years  before  the  time  that 
Adventists  say  the  Catholic  Church  changed  the  day 
of  the  Sabbath). 


SABBATH  WITNESSES  289 

Certain  it  is  that  Mr.  Andrews  would  not  have 
made  these  admissions  if  he  could  have  found  any 
possible  ground  for  disputing  the  testimony.  We 
may,  therefore,  accept  them  as  genuine,  and  if  gen- 
uine, they  trace  the  observance  of  Sunday  to  within 
twenty  years  of  the  last  of  the  apostles. 

This,  however,  is  easily  explained  by  Adventists, 
for  Paul  himself  said,  in  2  Thess.  2  :  7,  ^'The  mys- 
tery of  iniquity  doth  already  work.''  It  never  oc- 
curs to  them  that  this  might  possibly  apply  to  their 
own  Judaizing  doctrine  with  which  Paul  had  so  much 
to  contend,  or  to  the  spirit  that  is  ever  working  to 
counteract  the  power  of  the  Eesurrection.  Stigma- 
tizing the  great  standing  witness  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion as  the  ^^mark  of  the  beast"  can  certainly  have 
no  other  origin. 

Again  Mr.  Andrews  says,  ^ '  The  reasons  offered  by 
the  early  Fathers  for  neglecting  the  observance  of 
the  Sabbath  show  conclusively  that  they  had  no  spe- 
cial light  on  the  subject  by  reason  of  living  in  the 
first  centuries.'' — History  of  the  Sabhath,  page  308. 

In  the  first  place,  this  only  shows  that  the  early 
Fathers  held  one  doctrine  and  Mr.  Andrews  held 
another.  In  the  second  place,  that  Mr.  Andrews 
claims  to  have  special  light  on  the  Sabbath  question 
that  the  early  Fathers  did  not  possess,  which  calls 
for  proof  not  yet  given.  In  the  third  place,  it  is  a 
full  acknowledgment  that  the  early  Fathers  kept 
Sunday,  which  is  the  only  question  here  under  con- 
sideration. 

The  first  Sunday  law  was  made  by  Constantine  in 
A.  D.  321 ;  but  the  testimon}^  of  the  early  Christian 


290  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

writers,  which  we  have  given,  were  all  before  that 
date.  Hence  the  early  Christians  could  not  have 
kept  Sunday  in  recognition  of  a  law  not  yet  made, 
nor  in  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  pope  before 
any  pope  existed,  nor  in  recognition  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  before  any  such  church  was  a  recog- 
nized authority;  but  they  kept  Sunday,  as  the  testi- 
monies themselves  state,  in  commemoration  of  the 
Resurrection  of  their  Lord. 

Have  not  Protestants  to-day  the  same  risen 
Lord!  Have  they  not  the  same  reason  and  in- 
centive for  keeping  Sunday  that  the  early  Chris- 
tians had?  Then,  if  they  keep  Sunday  for  the  same 
reason,  do  they  recognize  thereby  any  State,  Pope, 
or  Church  authority  any  more  than  the  early  Chris- 
tians did? 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THE     EESUEKECTION     TESTIMONY     OF     THE     CHRISTIAN 

SABBATH. 

The  great  justification  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  is 
that  it  is  a  standing  witness  pointing  the  sinner  to 
the  Resurrection  as  the  proof  of  Christ's  power  to 
save.  The  suffering  and  death  of  Jesus  would  have 
been  of  no  avail  if  God  had  not  accepted  the  sacrifice 
as  sufficient,  the  proof  of  which  is  in  the  Resurrec- 
tion. It  is  God 's  receipt  to  the  world  that  Jesus  paid 
the  debt  in  full. 

Jesus  suffered  and  died  for  a  purpose.  This  pur- 
pose is  the  climax  of  the  Gospel.  The  Bible  must  be 
interpreted  in  the  light  of  it.  All  interpretations  of 
scripture  that  conflict  with  it  must  go  down  before  it. 
This  does  not  mean  that  truth  can  contradict  itself, 
but  only  means  that  no  true  interpretation  will  con- 
flict with  the  great  purpose  of  Christ's  suffering  and 
death. 

Adventists  say  that  God  gave  the  only  true  me- 
morial of  the  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ  in 
baptism  by  immersion.  That  immersion,  in  its  sug- 
gestion of  burial  and  resurrection,  is  a  memorial  of 
the  burial  and  Resurrection  of  Christ,  at  least  to  all 
who  regard  it  as  such,  cannot  be  denied;  but  it  in- 
volves belief  in  the  Resurrection  of  Christ,  and  so 
lacks  the  element  of  inherent  proof.  While  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath,  in  its  regularly  recurring  count  from 


292  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

the  event  itself,  carries  the  element  of  inherent 
proof.  Then  is  it  not  a  God-given  memorial  in  the 
truest  sense?  What  testifies  for  Christ  cannot  be 
against  him  (Mark  9  :  40). 

^^All  men  should  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor 
the  Father.  He  that  honoreth  not  the  Son,  honoreth 
not  the  Father  which  hath  sent  him^'  (John  5  :  23). 
Does  the  witness  of  the  Christian  Sabbath  to  the  di- 
vinity of  Christ,  as  proved  by  the  Resurrection, 
honor  or  dishonor  Him?  The  Christian  Sabbath  re- 
tains all  that  is  worth  retaining  of  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath; only  the  Exodus  memorial  element  is  ex- 
changed for  the  Resurrection  memorial  element. 

*^God  so  loved  the  world,  that  he  gave  His  only 
begotten  Son''  (John  3  :  16).  Did  God  sacrifice  so 
much  in  the  Creation!  Is  then  the  fact  of  Creation 
greater  in  God's  sight  than  the  fact  of  Redemption? 
Does  the  Creation  mean  more  to  us  than  the  Resur- 
rectioil?  The  Creation  without  the  Resurrection 
would  mean  to  us  but  a  span  of  time  and  an  unknown 
eternity,  but  the  Resurrection  means  joy,  hope  and 
the  assurance  of  eternal  life. 

How  barren  of  meaning  to  the  sinner  is  the  seventh 
day  of  the  week  Sabbath !  What  hope  is  there  even 
in  the  Creation  memorial  meaning  of  the  Sabbath  to 
the  sinner  1  What  hope  is  there  in  that  which  points 
only  to  law  and  judgment. 

The  Christian  Sabbath  points  to  law  and  judg- 
ment on  the  one  hand,  in  its  every  seventh  day  ele- 
ment, and  to  hope,  mercy,  and  everlasting  life  on 
the  other,  in  its  first  day  of  the  week  element.  It 
convicts  of  sin  on  the  one  hand  and  offers  pardon  on 
the  other.  The  seventh  day  of  the  week  Sabbath  sav- 
ors of  the  letter  that  killeth,  and  which  Paul  said  was 
done  away  (2  Cor.  3   :  6-11).    The  first  day  of  the 


RESURRECTION  TESTIMONY  293 

week  Sabbath  savors  of  the  spirit  that  giveth  life. 

The  apostles  preached  the  Resurrection  with  no 
uncertain  sound,  because  to  them  it  was  an  actual 
fact,  for  they  both  saw  and  touched  the  risen  Lord. 
Nothing  short  of  the  actual  fact  could  have  changed 
those  thoroughly  disheartened  disciples  into  uncon- 
querable martyrs,  whose  faith  was  tested  by  their 
blood.  So  in  all  ages  the  Resurrection  has  been  the 
rallying  point  of  faith. 

Genuine  faith  must  have  solid  facts  to  stand  upon. 
The  solid  rock  of  the  Christian  faith  is  the  Resurrec- 
tion; and  the  Christian  Sabbath  is  one  of  the  solid 
facts  that  attest  it. 

The  Resurrection  is  the  reason  of  our  faith,  the 
ground  of  our  hope,  and  the  pledge  of  our  salvation. 
The  Gospel  of  the  Resurrection  is  the  only  Gospel 
that  will  convert  the  world,  for  it  is  the  only  Gospel 
that  is  backed  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
Gospel  of  the  Resurrection  and  the  Sabbath  of  the 
Resurrection  belong  to  each  other.  They  cannot  be 
separated.  Wherever  the  Gospel  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion has  gone,  the  Resurrection-day  Sabbath  has 
gone;  and  the  Holy  Spirit  has  ever  put  the  seal  of 
His  blessing  upon  it.  It  is  not  possible  for  an  ignor- 
ant misconception  of  the  Sabbath  to  have  been  uni- 
formly and  continuously  marked  with  the  seal  of  di- 
vine approval  through  1900  years. 

The  power  of  the  Resurrection  is  the  fact  that 
makes  Satan  tremble.  He  would  gladly  blot  out 
every  witness  that  pointed  the  sinner  to  it.  Infidels 
deny  the  Bible — worldings  will  not  read  it — but  they 
cannot  help  reading  the  testimony  of  the  Christian 
Sabbath.  It  is  like  an  unbroken  cord  that  leads  un- 
erringly to  the  object  to  which  it  is  attached.  It 
proves  the  fact  of  the  Resurrection.     This  in  turn 


294  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

proves  the  divinity  of  Christ.  This  in  turn  proves 
the  authority  of  the  Bible.  It  is  the  witness  that  will 
not  down.  If  Adventists  could  destroy  this  witness 
would  Satan  mourn  or  would  he  rejoice?  And  in  so 
far  as  they  weaken  its  testimony,  is  Satan  made 
sorry  or  glad? 

Infidels  accept  the  historical  personality  of  Jesus, 
but  deny  His  Resurrection.  Why! — Because  it 
is  the  proof  of  His  divinity.  Said  Voltaire,  ^' There 
is  no  hope  of  destroying  the  Christian  religion  as 
long  as  the  Christian  Sabbath  is  acknowledged  and 
kept  by  men  as  a  sacred  day.''  Why?  Because  it 
is  the  great  inherent  proof -bearing  memorial  witness 
to  the  Eesurrection  of  Jesus,  The  Christ. 

* '  The  Jewish  nation  at  the  present  time  absolutely 
deny  that  Jesus  arose  after  His  death.  They  give 
no  reason  for  this  denial.  The  Jewish  nation  never 
denied  the  Historical  Fact  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
Especially  during  the  last  century  we  have  heard 
some  great  expressions  from  well  known  and  learned 
Jews  concerning  Jesus  Christ.  During  the  last  few 
years  we  heard  great  Jewish  teachers  say  that  He 
was  A  Prophet.  Most  of  the  Reformed  Jews  admit 
that  He  was  one  of  the  greatest  Teachers.  That  He 
was  a  great  man  is  admitted  by  all  Jews.^^ — Hugo 
Spitzer,  Missionary  in  charge  of  Jewish  Mission, 
Winnipeg,  Canada. 

Why  this  positive  denial  of  the  Resurrection  of 
Jesus? — Because  it  is  the  proof  of  His  divinity.  Bap- 
tism by  immersion,  as  practiced  by  certain  Christian 
churches,  can  practically  have  no  appeal  to  the  Jew 
as  a  witness  to  the  Resurrection,  because  he  seldom, 
if  ever,  comes  in  contact  with  it:  but  he  is  always 
face  to  face  with  the  Christian  Sabbath  because  of 
its  constant  clash  with  the  Jewish  Sabbath. 


EESURKECTION  TESTIMONY  295 

The  Cliristian  Sabbath  is  the  one  witness  that 
never  lets  the  Jew  forget  Jesus.  So  long  as  the 
Christian  Sabbath  stands  as  a  witness  to  the  Eesur- 
reetion  of  Jesus,  by  leading  back  in  unbroken  line 
to  the  event  itself,  the  Jews  can  never  entirely  free 
their  minds  of  the  lurking  subconscious  thought, 
thaty  perhaps,  in  spite  of  every  denial  to  the  con- 
trary, the  Jesus  ivhom  they  crucified  did  actually 
rise  from  the  dead,  and  was  therefore  the  Christ, — 
and  what  if  Jesus  were  the  Christ! 

Thus  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  is  the  very  crux 
around  which  the  great  conflict  rages :  and  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath  is  the  great,  unevadable,  unanswerable 
and  undownable  witness  to  His  Resurrection,  and 
therefore  to  His  divinity  as  the  Christ.  Can  there 
then  be  any  doubt  that  Satan  would  use  every  means 
in  his  power  to  destroy  the  Resurrection  testimony 
of  the  Christian  Sabbath? 

A  memorial  is  the  strongest  of  testimonies.  A  me- 
morial day  is  the  strongest  of  memorials  in  the  wide- 
ness  of  its  reach.  Therefore,  the  Christian  Sabbath 
stands  out  pre-eminently  before  the  world  as  the- 
great  witness  to  the  Resurrection  by  leading  back  in 
unbroken  line  to  the  very  event  itself.  Does  Satan 
recognize  this  fact! — He  certainly  does.  He  is  con- 
centrating his  forces  against  it.  He  cannot  destroy 
the  witness,  but  he  is  doing  all  in  his  power  to  weaken 
the  force  of  its  testimony, — by  discrediting  it,  by  de- 
stroying its  sacredness,  by  abolishing  it  where  pos- 
sible, by  heaping  dishonor  upon  it,  by  branding  it  is 
a  relic  of  pagan  sun-worship  and  as  the  **mark  of  the 
beast.''  Among  the  forces  that  he  has  arrayed 
against  it  are  infidels,  saloonkeepers,  thugs,  and 
Seventh-day  Adventists.    Does  it  indicate  anything 


296  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

to  be  working  in  a  common  cause  with  Christ's  worst 
enemies? 

When  Christ  was  on  earth,  Satan  did  all  in  his 
power  to  destroy  Him,  and  finally  succeeded  in  put- 
ting Him  to  death  on  the  cross.  On  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week  He  lay  in  the  tomb.  This  was  the  day  of 
Satan's  jubilee,  and  the  day  of  greatest  gloom  to  the 
disciples.  What  then  is  there  in  it  for  Christians  to 
commemorate  1 

But  all  this  was  reversed  in  the  triumphant  Resur- 
rection. Hence,  the  Resurrection  is  the  evidence  of 
Christ's  victory,  and  of  Satan's  defeat;  and  the 
Christian  Sabbath  is  the  great  witness  constantly 
pointing  to  it. 

Therefore,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  Satan's  at- 
titude toward  the  Christian  Sabbath,  for  its  testi- 
mony is  a  powerful  weapon  against  him.  Hence,  it 
was  inevitable  that  Satan  would  institute  an  active 
campaign  against  it.  He  cannot  destroy  the  fact  of 
the  Resurrection,  nor  the  Christian  Sabbath  as  the 
God  appointed  witness  thereto.  All  he  can  do  is  to 
weaken  the  force  of  its  testimony  so  far  as  possible. 
As  an  experienced  strategist  he  naturally  adapts  his 
methods  to  the  character  of  those  to  whom  he  ap- 
peals. Thus,  to  the  worldly  he  endeavors  to  destroy 
its  sacredness  by  making  it  a  day  of  revelry,  dissipa- 
tion, and  pleasure  seeking ;  to  the  money  worshipers, 
and  the  Christ  haters,  he  endeavors  to  have  it  ig- 
nored. To  the  honest  seekers  after  truth  he  endeav- 
ors to  deflect  its  testimony  by  suggesting  that  it  is  a 
relic  of  pagan  sun-worship,  or  a  **mark  of  the 
beast."  Evidently,  if  he  can  succeed  in  doing  this,  he 
has  most  efPectively  accomplished  his  purpose;  and 
he  is  far  too  able  a  strategist  not  to  recognize  and 
use  so  effective  a  means  to  secure  his  end. 


EESURRECTION  TESTIMONY  297 

1 

He  is  far  too  able  a  strategist  also,  not  to  recog- 
nize the  necessity  of  first  deceiving  and  blinding  his 
own  prophets  and  teachers  in  order  to  most  effec- 
tively deceive  and  blind  others  through  them.  Then, 
honestly  posing  as  God^s  special  warning  agents  to 
warn  the  people  of  the  great  danger  of  being  de- 
ceived by  Satan,  is  only  one  of  Satan's  most  effective 
blinds. 

Adventists  constantly  point  others  to  Satan's  six 
thousand  years  experience  in  deceiving,  and  yet  im- 
agine themselves  safe  beyond  his  reach,  while  in  re- 
ality their  very  imagined  security  makes  them  an 
easy  mark. 

Moreover,  Satan  is  shrewd  enough  to  mix  his  own 
errors  with  sufficient  truth  to  make  them  palatable. 
He  transforms  himself  into  an  angel  of  light  and 
transforms  his  ministers  as  ministers  of  righteous- 
ness (2  Cor.  11  :  14,15)  that  they  may  *^lead  astray, 
if  possible,  even  the  elect"  (Matt.  24  :  24  R.  V.). 
Those  who  deliberately  shut  their  eyes  to  facts,  turn 
their  backs  to  reason  for  the  sake  of  theory,  and  open 
their  ears  to  flattering  delusions,  thereby  make  them- 
selves vulnerable  to  Satan's  deceptions,  and  are  eas- 
ily led  to  believe  that  they  are  the  special  recipients 
of  God's  whole  truth,  and  God's  specially  appointed 
interpreters  of  His  inspired  word. 

Adventists  deliberately  shut  their  eyes  to  the  plain 
fact,  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  a  witness  to  the 
Resurrection,  and  refuse  to  see  anything  in  it  but  a 
relic  of  sun-worship  and  a  '^mark  of  the  beast,"  yet 
knowing,  as  they  must,  that  Christians  keep  it  solely 
as  a  memorial  of  the  Resurrection,  and  that  God  who 
reads  the  heart  cannot  fail  to  recognize  the  motive. 
Adventists  thus  ignore  reason,  and  deny  the  justice 
of  God.    It  is  such  that  Satan  most  easily  blinds. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THE  SEAL  OF  GOD. 

Adventists  teach  that  the  Sabbath  is  the  seal  of 
God  referred  to  in  Revelation  7.  Even  if  this  were 
true,  would  the  seal  of  God  be  the  Saturday  Sabbath 
commemorating  the  Creation  and  Exodus  or  the 
Sunday  Sabbath  commemorating  the  two  all-import- 
ant events  in  the  world's  history — the  Creation  and 
the  Resurrection?  The  former  as  a  memorial  of 
Creation  would  only  be  a  seal,  or  assurance,  of  God's 
power  as  Creator :  the  latter  would  be  a  seal,  or  as- 
surance, of  both  His  power  and  love  as  Creator  and 
Saviour. 

The  Resurrection  of  Christ  is,  in  a  sense,  the  only 
seal  or  assurance  of  salvation;  for,  ^^If  Christ  be  not 
raised,  your  faith  is  vain;  ye  are  yet  in  your  sins'* 
(1  Cor.  15  :  17).  Therefore  the  Sabbath  as  a  seal 
would  be  very  incomplete  without  its  Resurrection 
assurance. 

But  Adventists  here,  as  at  every  step  of  their 
argument,  assume  that  the  Sabbath  commandment 
recognizes  no  Sabbath  but  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week. 

The  Sabbath  is  nowhere  in  the  Bible  called  a 


THE    SEAL    OF    GOD  299 


''seaP':  but  in  Ex.  31  :  17  and  Ex.  20  :  12,20,  it  is 
called  a  *^sign."  Adventists  argue  that  ^'sign'^  and 
'^seaP'  are  used  in  the  Bible  as  synonymous  terms 
because  Rom.  4  :  11  says  that  the  sign  of  circum- 
cision was  given  to  Abraham  as  a  seal  (or  token  of 
the  covenant — Gen.  17  :  11). 

A  staff  may  be  used  as  a  pointer,  and  a  pointer 
may  be  used  as  a  staff,  but  it  does  not  follow  that 
staff  and  pointer  are  necessarily  synonymous  terms ; 
so  a  sign  may  be  used  as  a  seal,  and  a  seal  may  be 
used  as  a  sign,  but  it  does  not  follow  that  sign  and 
seal  are  necessarily  synonymous  terms.  The  origi- 
nal word  for  ^^sign"  is  never  rendered  ^^seal,'^  and 
the  original  word  for  **seal"  is  never  rendered 
'  ^  sign. '  ^  The  word  ^  ^  seal ' '  is  used  sixty-five  times  in 
the  Bible,  but  never  is  it  said  to  be  the  Sabbath. 

Adventists  admit  that  the  word  ^'seaP'  is  used  in 
the  Bible  in  various  senses. — See  The  Great  Contro- 
versy, p.  690.  Sign  is  also  used  in  the  Bible  where  it 
cannot  mean  seal. — See  Matt.  12  :  38,39;  16  :  4 
24  :  3;  Mark  8  :  11,12;  Luke  11  :  29,30;  John  2  :  18 
6  :  30 ;  1  Cor.  1  :  22 ;  Ezek.  24  :  24 ;  Isa.  7  :  11,14 
Ex.  4  :  8,  etc.  Therefore,  the  mere  fact  that  the  Sab- 
bath is  called  a  ^'sign''  is  far  from  conclusive  proof 
that  the  Sabbath  is  the  ''seal  of  God"  referred  to  in 
Revelation  7. 

As  a  sign  or  mark,  the  Christian  Sabbath  distin- 
guishes Christian  nations  from  others  just  as  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  distinguished  the  Jewish  nation 
from  others. 

A  man  may  keep  the  Sabbath  ever  so  strictly  and 
yet  not  be  a  Christian;  hence  the  Sabbath  cannot 
seal  a  man's  salvation.     Keeping  the  Sabbath  is 


300  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

man's  act;  but  man  cannot  seal  liis  salvation  by  any 
outward  act  of  Ms  own.  We  are  saved  by  grace, 
through  faith,  not  by  w^orks  (Eph.  2  :  8,9).  Keeping 
the  Sabbath  is  not  a  sure  test  of  character  or  of  fit- 
ness for  heaven.  But  God's  seal  must  be  a  sure  mark 
of  the  fitness  of  the  one  sealed.  Hence  the  Sabbath 
cannot  be  God's  seal. 

*^Who  hath  also  sealed  us,  and  given  the  earnest 
of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts"  (2  Cor.  1  :  22).  *^In 
v/hom  also  after  that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed 
with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise"  (Eph.  1  :  13). 
^*And  grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  ye 
are  sealed  unto  the  day  of  redemption"  (Eph.  4  :  30). 
These  passages  point  to  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  seal 
witli  which  God  seals  the  redeemed.  In  one  sense  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  here  represented  as  the  seal,  the  pres- 
ence of  which  gives  assurance  of  eternal  life.  In  an- 
other sense  the  sealing  is  the  act  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  keeping  the  Sabbath  is  an  act  of  man,  not  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Even  though  the  act  may  be  prompted 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  yet  the  act  itself  is  man's  act. 

*^And  Jesus  when  he  was  baptized,  went  up 
straightway  out  of  the  water:  and,  lo,  the  heavens 
were  opened  unto  him,  and  he  saw  the  Spirit  of  God 
descending  like  a  dove,  and  lighting  upon  him" 
(Matt.  3  :  16).  ^^And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I 
saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven  like  a  dove, 
and  it  abode  upon  him.  And  I  knew  him  not :  but  he 
that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same  said 
unto  me,  upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  de- 
scending, and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he 
which  baptizetli  with  the  Holy  Ghost.    And  I  saw. 


THE    SEAL    OP    GOD  301 

and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of  God"  (John 
1  :  32-34).  ''For  him  hath  God  the  Father  sealed'' 
(John  6  :  27).  If  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
the  act  of  sealing,  then  the  Holy  Spirit  with  which  we 
are  baptized  must  be  the  seal  with  which  we  are 
sealed. 

''Now  if  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
he  is  none  of  his''  (Rom.  8:9).  Then  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  is  the  seal,  or  assurance,  that  we  belong  to 
Christ.  "If  Christ  be  not  raised,  your  faith  is  vain; 
ye  are  yet  in  your  sins"  (1  Cor.  15  :  17).  Then  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  is,  in  a  sense,  the  seal,  or  as- 
surance,  of  Eedemption.  Whatever  confirms,  rati- 
fies, or  makes  sure,  carries  the  sense  of  a  seal. 

In  Eevelation  7,  the  144,000  represents  the  serv- 
ants of  God  (verse  3) ;  but  all  true  Christians  are 
servants  of  God. — Then  all  true  Christians  are  in- 
cluded in  the  144,000.  Again  we  are  told,  in  Rev. 
14  :  3,  that  only  the  144,000  can  learn  the  song  of  the 
redeemed ;  but  we  know  .that  all  the  redeemed  will  be 
able  to  sing  that  song. — Then  all  the  redeemed  are  in- 
cluded in  the  144,000.  Hence,  we  must  conclude  that 
the  144,000  represents  the  whole  church  of  God,  and, 
therefore,  is  to  be  interpreted,  not  literally,  but  sym- 
bolically,— which  also  harmonizes  with  the  symboli- 
cal setting  in  which  it  is  placed. 

12  X  12  X  1000=144,000.  12  x  12  may  symbolize 
the  twelve  patriarchs  as  representing  the  Old  Tes- 
tament dispensation,  and  the  twelve  apostles  as  rep- 
resenting the  New  Testament  dispensation;  thus  rep- 
resenting the  twelve  tribes  of  Isreal  both  in  the  let- 
ter and  in  the  spirit.    In  the  letter  Israel  represents 


302  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

only  the  Jews ;  but  in  the  spirit  it  represents  the  uni- 
versal church. — See  Eom.  9:6;  Gal.  3  :  28,29  and 
6  :  16,  also  Eomans,  11th  chap. 

One  thousand  is  the  symbol  of  contrast  between 
God's  reckoning  and  man's  reckoning;  thus,  ^^One 
day  is  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thou- 
sand years  as  one  day"  (2  Pet.  3:8).  One  thousand 
then  expresses  the  indefinite  character  of  God's  reck- 
oning as  viewed  from  man's  standpoint.  It  would 
thus  lend  the  same  indefinite  character  to  the  144,000, 
which  would,  therefore,  represent  an  innumerable 
multitude  from  man's  view,  and,  at  the  same  time,  a 
very  definite  number  from  God's  view  (Matt. 
10  :  30).  It  is  definite  in  that  no  true  servant  of 
God  will  be  left  out. 

After  John  ^^ heard''  the  symbolical  number  of  the 
sealed,  he  ^^ beheld''  them  as  ^^a  great  multitude 
which  no  man  could  number,  of  all  nations,  and  kin- 
dreds, and  people,  and  tongues."  If  the  preceding 
inferences  are  correct,  we  have  here  but  the  spirit- 
ual, world-wide  interpretation  of  the  Jewish  symbol 
in  the  144,000  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel.  There  is 
nothing  to  imply  that  John  saw  the  sealed  as  a  sepa- 
rate multitude :  he  only  ^^ heard"  the  number  of  them, 
but  all  he  ^^ beheld"  was  the  innumerable  multitude. 

Adventists  teach  that  the  144,000  are  the  exact 
number  of  Christians  that  will  be  on  the  earth  at 
Christ's  second  coming,  and  that  the  innumerable 
multitude  are  all  the  Christian  dead.  They  accept 
the  symbolical  interpretation  of  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel  as  representing  the  universal  church.  Then 
they  have  no  reason  for  rejecting  the  symbolical  in- 
terpretation of  the  144,000  in  the  same  connection. 


THE   SEAL   OF   GOD  303 

The  innumerable  multitude  are  designated  as 
**  These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great  tribula- 
tion" (verse  14),  but  if  they  are  all  the  Christian 
dead,  it  would  not  be  true,  in  an  average  sense,  that 
they  passed  through  greater  tribulation  than  the 
144,000.  They  are  also  designated  as  they  which 
*'have  washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in 
the  blood  of  the  Lamb'';  and  this  applies  no  less 
truly  to  the  144,000.  Moreover,  all  the  blessings 
and  rewards  in  the  vision  are  assigned  to  the  innum- 
erable multitude  and  none  to  the  144,000,  unless  botli 
are  the  same. 

The  144,000  are  designated,  in  Eevelation  14,  as 
the  ** redeemed  from  the  earth"  (verse  3),  again,  as 
*Hhe  redeemed  from  among  men"  (verse  4).  This 
applies  no  less  truly  to  the  innumerable  multitude. 

These  considerations,  together  with  those  given  at 
the  beginning  argue  the  identity  of  the  144,000  with 
the  innumerable  multitude. 

The  144,000  are  the  ^^firstfruits"  (Eev.  14  :  4) ; 
then  there  must  be  an  afterfruits.  Paul  said,  *^The 
dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first"  (1  Thess.  4  :  16). 
Then  the  144,000  cannot  be  the  firstf ruits  with  regard 
to  the  Christian  dead,  nor  the  afterfruits ;  hence  they 
must  include  all  the  Christian  dead. 

When  we  consider  the  heathen  who  have  died  with- 
out ever  hearing  of  Christ,  and  hence  without  any 
chance  of  either  accepting  or  rejecting  Him;  and 
that  **God  is  just" ;  it  is  at  least  not  unreasonable  to 
think  that  from  among  these  may  be  the  afterfruits. 
They  could  scarcely  be  designated  as  ^Hhe  servants 
of  God''  (applied  to  the  144,000),  nor  as  ^^they  which 


304  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

came  out  of  great  tribulation,  and  have  washed  their 
robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb''  (applied  to  the  innumerable  multitude) ;  and 
hence  can  not  in  any  sense  be  included  in  the  first- 
fruits,  and  so  are  without  any  provision,  so  far  as  re- 
vealed in  the  Bible;  but  as  they  ^'are  a  law  unto 
themselves''  (Rom.  2  :  14),  the  inference  at  least  is, 
that  God  will  deal  with  them  on  a  basis  not  revealed 
in  the  Bible,  because  not  necessary  for  man  to  know ; 
which,  however,  must  involve  personal  acceptance  of 
Christ,  as  the  basis  of  salvation  for  there  is  salva- 
tion in  no  other  (Acts  4  :  12),  and  every  man  is  a 
free  moral  agent,  which  fact  involves  personal  de- 
cision. This  acceptance  must  necessarily  be  after 
this  life,  since  they  had  no  knowledge  of  Christ  in 
this  life.  Thus  they  would  be  the  fruits  of  a  sepa- 
rate and  after  dispensation. 

This  involves  no  second  chance  doctrine,  but  only 
the  giving  of  a  first  chance  to  those  who  have  never 
had  any  chance  at  all.  The  how,  when,  and  where 
involved  belong  to  the  unrevealed  counsel  of  God's 
infinite  wisdom. 

The  144,000  were  sealed  in  their  foreheads  (Rev. 
7:3).  We  next  see  them,  in  Chapter  14,  with  the 
Father's  name  written  in  their  foreheads.  Also,  in 
Chapter  22  :  4,  we  read,  ' '  His  name  shall  be  in  their 
foreheads."  It  is  apparent  then  that  the  *^ Father's 
name,"  not  the  Sabbath,  is  the  seal  with  which  they 
were  sealed. 

Adventists  say  that  the  forehead  is  here  used  as 
a  figure  to  denote  the  intellect,  or  mind.  (See  The 
Great  Controversy,  p.  691.)     Then  from  this  view, 


THE    SEAL    OF    GOD  305 

sealing  tlie  Father's  name  in  tlieir  forelieads  would 
denote  the  imparting  to  those  who  are  thus  sealed 
the  definite  knowledge  that  God  is  their  Father  and 
they  are  His  children. 

But  every  fanatic  thinks  he  has  this  definite  knowl- 
edge (and  the  more  fanatical,  the  more  certain  he 
is),  and,  therefore,  that  he  belongs  to  the  sealed,  and 
hence  his  doctrine  must  be  true,  and  all  who  do  not 
agree  with  him  must  be  excluded.  This  only  shows 
that  the  proof  of  the  sealing  is  in  the  fact  and  not  in 
the  thinking. 

We  do  not  believe  that  the  forehead  here  neces- 
sarily denotes  the  intellect,  or  mind,  or  at  least  we 
believe  that  it  has  an  additional  significance.  A  seal 
in  the  forehead  would  be  most  noticeable  to  others 
and  least  noticeable  to  one's  self.  The  seal  is  where 
God  sees  it  and  others  see  it,  but  where  the  sealed 
one  himself  cannot  see  it.  Thus  the  mark  in  the  fore- 
head, denotes  the  testimony  of  the  life,  which,  like 
a  mark  in  the  forehead,  cannot  be  hid,  but  is  *^  known 
and  read  of  all  men. ' ' 

The  Father's  name  necessarily  represents  the 
Father's  character.  Jesus  said,  ^'He  that  hath  seen 
me  hath  seen  the  Father"  (John  14  :  9).  Jesus  per- 
fectly revealed  the  character  of  the  Father  in  his 
own  character  and  life,  and  just  as  the  character  and 
life  of  Christians  conform  to  the  character  and  life 
of  Jesus,  do  men  see  in  their  lives  the  character  of 
the  Father.  Hence,  those  who  are  sealed  in  their 
foreheads  with  the  ^* Father's  name"  are  those  whose 
lives  reveal  the  character  of  the  Father.  The  more 
perfect  the  Christian  character,  the  clearer  is  the 
seal ;  but  the  seal,  however  dim,  seals  the  one  bearing 
it  as  belonging  to  the  number  sealed. 


306  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

The  most  perfect  Christian  character  is  not  found 
in  those  who  are  most  self-satisfied,  and  most  confi- 
dent of  having  the  seal,  but  in  those  who  are  most 
conscious  of  their  own  unworthiness,  and  most  reli- 
ant on  the  all-sufficient  merit  of  Christ  as  their  Sav- 
iour, and  most  Christlike  in  their  unselfishness  and 
self-forgetfulness  and  in  their  consecration  to  the 
service  of  others  and  to  the  cause  of  Christ. 

''Moses  wist  not  that  his  face  shone''  (Ex.34  :29). 
When  Isaiah  got  a  vision  of  the  holiness  of  the  Lord 
he  said,  ''Woe  is  me"  (Isa.  6:5).  Daniel,  "a  man 
greatly  beloved"  of  God,  included  himself  with  his 
people  and  said,  "We  have  sinned"  (Dan.  9  :  5). 
God  called  Job  "a  perfect  and  upright  man"  (Job. 
1:8),  but  Job  said,  "I  abhor  myself,  and  repent  in 
dust  and  ashes"  (Job  42  :  6).  "It  is  written,  be  ye 
holy;  for  I  am  holy"  (1  Pet.  1  :  16).  Then  holiness 
is  in  the  being,  and  not  in  the  claiming ;  and  the  being 
is  always  coupled  with  a  sense  of  humility  and  un- 
worthiness, as  in  the  cases  of  Moses,  Isaiah,  Daniel 
and  Job. 

"Nevertheless  the  foundation  of  God  standeth 
sure,  having  this  seal.  The  Lord  knoweth  them  that 
are  his"  (2  Tim.  2  :  19).  Then,  whom  the  Lord 
knoweth  as  His  are  securely  sealed  as  His  in  that 
knowledge.  Hence  the  literal  sense  of  the  sealing  is 
in  God's  knowledge  of  the  sealing,  not  in  any  visible 
mark  in  the  foreheads  of  those  sealed,  nor  in  any 
self -consciousness  of  the  fact  in  the  minds  of  those 
sealed. 

Those  who  in  any  degree  expect  to  merit  the  seal 
by  keeping  the  Sabbath,  or  by  any  other  act  of  their 
own,  to  that  extent  fail  to  put  their  full  reliance  in 


THE    SEAL    OF    GOD  307 

tlie  all-sufficient  merit  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  and  will 
therefore,  to  that  extent,  most  surely  fail. 

This  is  the  inevitable  tendency  of  the  Sabbath  seal 
doctrine ;  for  if  the  Sabbath  is  the  seal,  then  receiv- 
ing the  seal  must  depend  wholly  on  keeping  the  Sab- 
bath. If  the  sealing  depends  partly  on  anything  else 
besides  keeping  the  Sabbath,  then  keeping  the  Sab- 
bath is  not,  in  itself,  the  definite  seal.  But  if  keep- 
ing the  Sabbath  is  the  definite  seal,  then  persons 
wholly  unworthy  would,  by  keeping  the  Sabbath, 
receive  the  seal.  We  can  be  sure  that  the  sealing 
will  depend  wholly  on  merit,  and  not  on  any  outward 
act. 

The  Sabbath  seal  doctrine  is  based  on  the  fact  that 
the  Creation  reason  appended  to  the  Sabbath  com- 
mandment contains  the  three  elements  of  a  seal  (see 
page  173) ;  and  Adventists  assume,  therefore,  that 
this  fact  makes  the  Sabbath  the  seal  of  God.  We  ad- 
mit that  the  Creation  is  truly  a  seal  of  God's  power 
and  rightful  authority,  but  the  Sabbath  is  merely  a 
memorial  pointing  to  the  Creation.  Now  we  may 
draw  a  pointer  pointing  to  the  seal  on  a  legal  docu- 
ment. Is  the  pointer  the  seal?  Can  the  pointer  be 
the  same  as  the  thing  pointed  to?  Is  it  possible,  in 
any  conceivable  sense,  for  the  pointer  to  be  the  seal 
or  the  equivalent  of  the  seal!  Neither  is  it  any  more 
possible  for  the  Sabbath,  which  only  points  to  the 
Creation,  to  be  the  seal,  or  its  equivalent,  involved  in 
the  Creation. 

According  to  Adventists  themselves,  the  three  ele- 
ments of  a  seal  are  contained  only  in  the  words,  ^^For 
in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven  and  earth":  1. 
Authority  (God),  2.  Character  of  authority  (Crea- 
tor), 3.  Territory  (Universe). 


308  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

Then  the  seventh  day  on  which  God  rested  is  no 
part  of  the  seal.  Now  the  six  working  days  stand  in 
the  same  relation  to  the  Sabbath  as  the  six  Creation 
days  to  God 's  rest.  Hence  the  six  working  days,  and 
not  the  Sabbath,  would,  in  the  copy  sense,  represent 
the  Creation  seal. 

The  record  of  Creation  placed  in  the  Decalogue,  as 
a  seal  or  assurance  of  God^s  rightful  authority,  gives 
validity,  not  only  to  the  fourth  commandment,  but  to 
the  entire  Decalogue  as  the  commandments  of  the 
one  only  living  and  true  God.  Its  attachment  to  the 
fourth  commandment  is  fully  accounted  for  in  the 
model  relation  involved. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

THE  MARK  OF  THE  BEAST. 

If  the  Saturday  Sabbath  is  not  the  seal  of  God, 
then  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  not  the  ^^mark  of  the 
beast ; ' '  for  the  latter  assumption  is  based  wholly  on 
the  former  assumption,  on  the  ground  that  one  is  the 
parallel  of  the  other. 

But  what  then  is  the  *^mark  of  the  beast"!  Just 
as  the  ^^ Father's  name"  is  the  seal  of  God,  so,  in 
a  parallel  sense,  the  name  of  the  beast  would  be  the 
*^mark  of  the  beast."  And  this  is  confirmed  in  so 
many  words, — *Hhe  mark  of  his  name"  (Rev. 
14  :  11) ;  *Hhe  mark,  or  the  name  of  the  beast,  or  the 
number  of  his  name"  (Rev.  13  :  17) ;  ^^and  his  num- 
ber is  six  hundred  threescore  and  six"  (verse  18). 

Many  names  have  been  proposed  answering  to 
this  number,  but  we  will  here  only  notice  the  one 
held  by  Adventists. 

The  beast  has  upon  his  seven  heads  **the  name  of 
blasphemy"  (Rev.  13  : 1).  One  of  the  titles  assumed 
by  the  pope  is  vicarius  Filii  Dei — ^meaning  *^A  sub- 
stitute for  the  Son  of  God. "   If  we  add  the  numerical 


o 


10  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 


values  of  the  letters  of  this  title,  according  to 
the  Roman  notation  the  sum  will  be  666;  thus 
(omitting  the  letters  not  belonging  to  the  Roman  no- 
tation), V+1+C+l+U+I+L  +I+I+D  +1  =  5+1 
+100+1+5  +1+50+1  +1+500+1  =  666, 

U  is  given  the  same  value  as  V,  as  these  letters 
were  originally  only  different  forms  of  the  same 
letter, — we  still  call  double  V  (W)  double  U. 

This  title,  therefore,  answers  to  the  number  of  the 
beast  (verse  18).  It  also  answers  to  the  purpose  of 
Satan,  for  his  constant  aim  is  to  overthrow  the  au- 
thority of  Christ  and  substitute  his  own  by  whatever 
agency  he  may,  and  the  title  is  thus  a  jfitting  '^rnark 
of  the  beast"  whose  power  is  received  from  the  dra- 
gon, or  Satan  (verse  4). 

!,  Adventists  say  that  this  title  identifies  the  Papacy 
as  the  beast,  but  immediately  ignore  the  plain  state- 
ments above  cited, — that  the  name,  or  the  number  of 
the  name  of  the  beast,  as  representing  that  name,  is 
the  ^^mark  of  the  beast, '^ — another  example  of  how 
the^^  ^'just  let  the  Bible  interpret  itself.'* 

We  will  here  quote  from  an  Adventist  pamphlet 
entitled.  The  Seal  of  God  and  the  Marh  of  the  Beast, 
page  20,  ^^  Having  found  that  the  Papacy  is  the 
beast,  we  can  easily  find  out  what  the  ^mark  of  the 
beast'  is,  for  it  is  a  rival  of  God's  seal — the  Sab- 
bath." 

We  see  that  their  whole  Sunday  ^'mark  of  the 
beast"  argument  is  based  solely  on  the  assumption 
that  the  seal  of  God  is  the  Saturday  Sabbath.  Then 
if  the  Saturday  Sabbath  is  not  the  seal  of  God,  the 
Sunday  Sabbath  is  not  the  *'mark  of  the  beast." 

Again,  notice  (verse  17)  that  only  those  who  have 


THE   MARK   OF   THE   BEAST  311 

the  ^^mark  of  the  beast''  are  allowed  to  buy  or  sell, 
and  this  restriction  is  evidently  not  limited  to  any 
one  day  of  the  week.  Then  does  the  Sunday  Sab- 
bath, in  its  one  day  of  the  week  restriction  (which  is 
no  more  than  the  Sabbath  law  itself  requires,  and 
which  operates  alike  on  those  who  do  and  those  who 
do  not  receive  it),  answer  to  the  ^'mark  of  the 
beast"?"  If  not  then  it  cannot  be  the  ^'mark  of  the 
beast." 

Bishop  Newton,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  Clark  in  his 
comments  on  Hev.  13  :  17,  says  (referring  to  the 
Eoman  Catholic  Church),  "If  any  dissent  from  the 
stated  and  authorized  forms,  they  are  condemned 
and  excommunicated  as  heretics ;  and  in  consequence 
of  that,  they  are  no  longer  suffered  to  buy  or  sell. 
.  .  .  So  Eoger  Haveden  relates  of  William  the 
Conqueror,  that  he  was  so  dutiful  to  the  pope  that 
he  would  not  permit  any  one  in  his  power  to  buy  or 
sell  anything  whom  he  found  to  be  disobedient  to  the 
apostolic  sea.  So  the  canon  of  the  council  of  Lateran, 
under  Pope  Alexander  III,  made  against  the  Wal- 
denses  and  Albigenses,  enjoins,  upon  pain  of  anath- 
ema, that  no  man  presume  to  entertain  or  cherish 
them  in  his  house  or  land,  or  exercise  traffic  with 
them.  The  synod  of  Tours  in  France,  under  the 
same  pope,  orders,  under  like  intermination,  that  no 
man  should  presume  to  receive  or  assist  them,  no,  not 
so  much  as  to  hold  any  communication  with  them 
in  selling  or  buying."  This  answers  to  the  condition 
which  the  prophecy  predicts,  and  a  condition  too  that 
is  again  possible  if  the  Catholic  Church  had  full 
control. 

But  was  it  the  rejecting  of  the  Sunday  Sabbath, 


312  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

or  Vv^as  it  the  rejecting  of  tlie  ritual  arxd  authority 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  by  which  heretics  were 
judged  1  This  will  determine  the  mark  by  which  the 
privilege  of  buying  or  selling  was  granted  or  with- 
held. And  what  was  once  the  ^^mark  of  the  beast" 
will  remain  the  **mark  of  the  beast";  for  the  pro- 
phecy gives  no  intimation  that  the  mark  was 
changed. 

*^The  mark,  or  name  of  the  beast,  or  number  of 
his  name,"  represents  the  authority  of  the  beast,  just 
as  the  ^^ Father ^s  name"  represents  the  authority  of 
God,  and  on  the  forehead  or  right  hand,  represents 
a  recognition  of  that  authority. 

The  Sunday  ^^mark  of  the  beast"  delusion  is,  un- 
doubtedly, the  most  effective  device  used  by  Advent- 
ists,  as  it  appeals  strongly  to  the  superstitious  ele- 
ment in  man. 

When  we  remember  Satan's  six  thousand  years 
experience,  we  can  put  no  de\"ice  beyond  his  ingen- 
uity, and  we  can  be  sure  that  the  more  etfective  the 
device,  the  more  certain  he  is  to  make  use  of  it.  If  he 
can  get  people  to  believe  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath 
was  established  by  his  own  authority,  then  he  has 
completely  destroyed  its  Resurrection  testimony, 
which  is  the  very  thing  that  he  would  most  assuredly 
try  to  do. 

1.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Satan  would,  if  pos- 
sible, destroy  every  witness  that  points  to  the  Eesur- 
rection.  2.  That  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  the  great 
standing  witness  continually  pointing  to  the  Resur- 
rection, is  a  fact  too  plain  to  be  denied.  3.  Therefore, 
Satan  would,  if  possible,  destroy  the  testimony  of 
the  Sunday  Sabbath. 


THE   MARK   OF   THE  BEAST  313 

These  three  propositions,  which  are  too  self-evi- 
dent to  be  disputed,  clearly  point  to  Satan  as  the 
true  source  of  all  such  plots  to  abolish  or  discredit 
the  Christian  Sabbath. 

Satan's  ^^ Sunday  mark  of  the  beast"  campaign 
involves  the  co-operation  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  as  the  beast  claiming  the  Sunday  Sabbath  as 
a  mark  of  its  authority,  and  the  Adventists  pointing 
to  said  claim  of  the  beast.  Both  are,  therefore,  allies 
in  the  same  cause:  their  avowed  antagonism  being 
only  an  essential  part  of  Satan's  strategem. 

We  neither  affirm  nor  deny  the  Adventist  doctrine 
regarding  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  as  the 
*^ beast."  We  only  assume  their  position  here  in 
order  to  meet  them  on  their  own  ground. 

When  we  consider  the  extravagant  and  unwar- 
ranted claims  that  have  been  made  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  it  is  not  surprising  that  it  claims  to 
have  changed  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  or  anything 
else  that  involves  claim  to  authority. 

Adventists  think  that  the  doctrine  that  the  Sunday 
Sabbath  is  the  '^mark  of  the  beast"  is  confirmed  be- 
cause the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  which  they  regard 
as  the  beast  referred  to  in  Daniel  and  Revelation, 
claims  it  as  a  mark  of  her  authority. 

No  one  will  attempt  to  dispute  the  two  following 
propositions.  1.  Nothing  can  be  regarded  as  a  *'mark 
of  the  beast"  unless  it  is  in  some  way  a  recognition 
of  the  authority  of  *Hhe  beast."  2.  What  totally 
ignores  the  authority  of  ''the  beast"  cannot  be  a 
''mark  of  the  beast." 

Recognition  of  a  claim  is  recognition  of  the  au- 


Q 


14  SABBATH  :  THEOLOGY 


thority  making  the  claim.  Then  to  give  up  the  Sun- 
day Sabbath  in  recognition  of  the  Catholic  claim  to 
it,  would  be  a  recognition  of  the  right  of  the  Catholic 
Church  to  make  the  claim,  and  to  that  extent  a  recog- 
nition of  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Who 
then  most  recognize  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
Church:  Sunday  keeping  Protestants  who  totally 
ignore  the  Catholic  claim,  or  Adventists  who  recog- 
nize the  Catholic  claim,  in  recognizing  Sunday  as  a 
mark  of  Catholic  authority? 

If  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  were  to  claim  the 
sole  authority  to  give  permission  to  breathe  the  at- 
mosphere, would  we  be  recognizing  the  authority  of 
the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  if  we  continued  to 
breathe  the  atmosphere? 

If  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  makes  a  claim  that 
it  has  no  right  to  make,  we  are  under  no  moral  obli- 
gation to  recognize  that  claim. 

Eoman  Catholics  themselves,  as  well  as  Advent- 
ists, try  hard  to  make  it  appear  that  Protestants  who 
keep  the  Sunday  Sabbath  thereby  recognize  the  au- 
thority of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church;  but  nothing 
can  be  farther  from  the  truth.  Does  the  Just  Judge, 
judge  Protestants  guilty  of  a  thing  that  they  are 
not  guilty  of?  Does  God  base  His  judgment  on  facts 
or  on  the  dictum  of  Adventist  and  Catholic  Exposi- 
tors? 

If  Protestants  recognized  that  there  was  no  au- 
thority for  the  Sunday  Sabbath  but  the  authority  of 
the  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  they  would  undoubtedly 
cease  to  observe  it ;  for  it  is  a  well  known  fact  that 
Protestants  do  not  recognize  the  authority  of  the 
Eoman  Catholic  Church. 


THE  MAEK  OF  THE  BEAST  315 

When  Adventists  assert  that  Protestants  keep  the 
Sunday  Sabbath  in  recognition  of  the  authority  of 
the  Eoman  Catholic  Church,  they  assert  what  they 
cannot  help  but  know  is  false.  They  have  a  great 
deal  to  say  about  the  ^^ lying  spirit/'  but  such  asser- 
tions, that  they  cannot  help  but  know  are  false,  and 
made  only  to  sustain  their  theory,  can  only  be  due  to 
the  *  *  lying  spirit, ' '  and  are  a  sure  mark  of  the  nature 
of  the  theory  they  are  meant  to  sustain. 

The  Eesurrection  was  the  climax  of  God's  great 
plan  of  Redemption.  It  was,  therefore,  the  most 
definite  point  in  God's  mind  before  the  foundation 
of  the  world.  It  was  the  great  determining  crisis  in 
human  destiny.  It  was  the  greatest  memorial  event 
in  all  time.  No  event  in  God's  dealings  with  man  can 
rank  with  it  as  a  God  appointed  day-fixing  event  for 
fixing  the  day  of  the  Sabbath.  It  occurred  at  the  ex- ' 
act  point  where  the  Exodus  reason,  which  fixed  the 
day  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  ended,  and  is,  therefore, 
the  only  event  that  can  possibly  be  looked  to  to  fix 
the  day  of  the  Sabbath  from  that  point  onward. 

God  through  the  Resurrection  definitely  chose  and 
honored  the  first  day  of  the  week  above  every  other 
day  of  the  week.  This  can  only  mean  that  He  pur- 
posed it  to  be  the  day  of  the  Christian  Sabbath.  He 
again  honored  it  above  every  other  day  of  the  week 
in  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  formal  ap- 
pointment of  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath. 

God  has  never  otherwise  fixed  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath than  by  some  act  or  acts  of  His  providence,. 


316  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

God's  providence  in  all  this  cliain  of  facts  is  too 
plain  to  be  misunderstood  by  any  one  not  theory 
blinded.  Therefore,  God,  not  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  changed  the  day  of  the  Sabbath. 

If  God  appointed  and  sanctified  through  His 
providence  the  first  day  of  the  week  as  the  Christian 
Sabbath,  then  Adventists  are  certainly  guilty  of  blas- 
phemy in  stigmatizing  it  as  the  '  ^  mark  of  the  beast. ' ' 

The  Resurrection  was  beyond  question  the  great- 
est memorial  event  of  all  time.  It  occurred  on  Sun- 
day, and  hence  Sunday  is  the  only  suitable  day  on 
which  to  commemorate  it.  God,  not  man,  selected 
Sunday  for  the  Resurrection.  He  put  the  seal  or 
mark  of  highest  honor  upon  it  in  thus  honoring  it 
above  every  other  day  of  the  week.  Who  then  dare 
call  it  the  ^'mark  of  the  beast?" 

Adventists  say,  that  Protestants  adopted  Sunday 
keeping  from  the  Catholics  and  the  Catholics 
adopted  it  from  the  pagan  Romans,  who  kept  it  in 
worship  of  the  sun.  It  would  be  just  as  correct  to 
say  that  Adventists  adopted  Saturday  keeping  direct 
from  the  pagan  Romans  who  kept  it  in  worship  of 
Saturn ;  for  Saturday  was  dedicated  to  Saturn  just 
as  Sunday  was  dedicated  to  the  Sun. 

The  mere  fact  that  Saturday  was  dedicated  to 
Saturn  does  not  prevent  Adventists  or  others  from 
keeping  that  day  in  commemoration  of  the  Creation,, 
if  they  choose  to  do  so,  then  why  should  the  fact  that 
Sunday  was  dedicated  to  the  Sun  prevent  Protes- 
tants or  others  from  keeping  that  day  in  commemo- 
ration of  the  Resurrection. 


THE   MARK  OF   THE  BEAST  317 

No  doubt  if  the  Resurrection  had  been  on  Satur- 
day, Adventists  would  gladly  recognize  the  added 
luster.  Do  they  deny  that  God  controls  events,  and 
that  He  had  a  definite  purpose  in  the  timing  of  the 
Resurrection?  Do  they  think  to  criticise  God  and  in- 
form Him  that  He  made  a  great  mistake  in  making 
Sunday  the  day  of  the  Resurrection,  because  it  was 
the  day  of  sun-worship  and,  therefore,  it  would  be 
impossible  to  keep  it  in  commemoration  of  the  Resur- 
rection, for  Satan  has  the  prior  right  to  it,  and  hence 
it  would  be  recognizing  Satan's  authority? 

This  is  practically  what  Adventists  say  when  they 
assert,  as  they  do,  that  Sunday  cannot  commemorate 
the  Resurrection,  but  only  the  origin  of  its  name  in 
sun-worship.  If  this  were  true,  then  Saturday  can 
only  commemorate  the  origin  of  its  name  in  the  wor- 
ship of  Saturn.  The  names  of  the  days  of  the  week 
answer  as  well  as  any  others  as  means  of  reference, 
and  beyond  that  fact  they  have  nothing  to  do  with 
determining  the  day  of  the  Sabbath;  for  God  is  not 
the  childish  quibbler  over  the  origin  of  words  that 
Adventists  assume  Him  to  be. 

If  the  Resurrection  in  itself  was  a  sufficient  me- 
morial reason  (and  no  greater  can  be  found)  for 
keeping  Sunday,  then  no  authority  of  State,  Pope,  or 
Church  is  needed  to  justify  it ;  and,  therefore,  Pro- 
testants can  keep  it  in  commemoration  of  the  Resur- 
rection without  recognizing  any  other  authority ;  and 
only  when  thus  kept  is  it  an  expression  of  gratitude 
and  a  sacrifice  pleasing  and  acceptable  to  God. 

Adventists  claim  that  the  Sabbath  was  changed 
from  Saturday  to  Sunday  by  the  Roman  Catholic 


318  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

power  at  the  Council  of  Laoclicea,  A.  D.  364.  At  the 
same  time  they  claim  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  origi- 
nated in  the  Church  at  Rome. 

These  two  claims  contradict  each  other.  For  Lao- 
dicea  was  in  iVsia  Minor,  one  thousand  miles  east  of 
Bome.  It  was  a  Greek,  not  a  Roman  city.  It  was 
beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  The 
council  consisted  of  thirty-two  bishops  from  the  dif- 
ferent provinces  in  Asia,  who  did  not  recognize  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  as  having  any  authority  over  them; 
for  it  was  nearly  two  hundred  years  before  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  became  the  recognized  head,  or  pope, 
over  all  the  churches.  Neither  the  Bishop  nor  the 
church  of  Rome  had  anything  whatever  to  do  with 
this  council.  The  council  represented,  among  others, 
the  early  churches  which  Paul  himself  founded  in 
Asia. 

The  29th  canon  of  this  council  reads  thus,  ^ '  Chris- 
tians ought  not  to  Judaize  and  to  rest  in  the  Sab- 
bath, but  to  work  in  that  day;  but  preferring  the 
Lord's  day,  should  rest,  if  possible,  as  Christians. 
Wherefore  if  they  shall  be  found  to  Judaize,  let  them 
be  accursed  from  Christ. ' ' 

This  is  the  act  by  which  Adventists  say  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  (which  was  not  even  represented, 
and  had  nothing  to  do  with  it)  changed  the  day  from 
Saturday  to  Sunday.  But  this  unanimous  action  of 
the  council  only  shows  that  the  sentiment  was  over- 
whelmingly in  favor  of  Sunday  throughout  the 
churches  of  Asia  that  were  represented  at  the  coun- 
cil. The  purpose  of  the  council  was  to  rid  the 
Church  of  a  small  Judaizing  element  that  still  ha- 
rassed the  Church  as  in  PauPs  time.    Paul  himself 


THE  MARK  OF  THE  BEAST  319 

said,  '*I  would  that  they  were  even  cut  off  which 
trouble  you"  (Gal.  5  :  12) ;  and  it  was  the  Judaizing 
element  that  he  warned  against  when  he  said,  ^'Be- 
ware of  the  concision"  (Phil.  3:2). 

Again,  Adventists  claim  that  the  Papacy  (which 
they  say  is  the  beast  of  Revelation  13)  was  estab- 
lished in  A.  D.  538,  when  the  Bishop  of  Rome  became 
the  head,  or  pope,  of  all  the  churches  by  the  decree 
of  the  Roman  emperor.  But  this  was  nearly  two 
hundred  years  after  the  time  (364)  when  they  say 
the  Catholic  Church  changed  the  Sabbath.  Then  the 
*  ^  beast ' '  did  not  change  it.  How  then  is  Sunday  the 
mark  of  the  authority  of  the  beast,  if  it  was  not  es- 
tablished by  its  authority? 

Adventists  explain  this  by  saying  that  Sunday,  as 
the  day  of  sun-worship,  was  the  mark  of  the  dragon 
(pagan  Rome),  and  when  he  gave  his  power  to  the 
^' beast"  (Rev.  13  :  2)  he  also  gave  the  mark  of  his 
authority  to  the  ^' beast."  This  is  based  on  the  as- 
sumption that  Sunday  was  from  the  beginning  the 
mark  of  Satan's  authority.  But  as  we  have  already 
shown  by  the  clearest  Bible  proofs,  that  the  Creation 
days  were  indefinite  periods,  and,  therefore,  that 
God  rested  on  the  first  day  of  the  first  week  of  time, 
then  the  first  day  of  the  week,  as  the  day  of  worship 
appointed  by  God,  was  a  mark  or  sign  of  God's 
authority. 

It  was  inevitably  certain,  that  Satan,  as  God's  an- 
tagonist, would  attempt  to  pervert  the  use  of  the 
day;  and  he  could  have  used  no  more  natural  and 
effective  means  than  to  gradually  materialize  the 
worship  of  God  into  the  worship  of  the  sun.  When 
God  restored  the  day  of  the  original  Sabbath,  in  the 


320  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

Eesurrection,  it  was  inevitably  certain  that  Satan 
would  again  attempt  to  pervert  its  use. 

Besides,  if  there  is  any  one  thing  of  which  we  may 
be  certain  it  is  that  Satan  would  do  all  in  his  power 
to  blot  out  the  testimony  of  the  Eesurrection.  And 
since  the  Resurrection  Sabbath  leads  back  in  un- 
broken line  to  the  event  itself,  and  is,  therefore,  the 
great  standing  witness  to  the  Resurrection,  nothing 
could  be  more  certain  than  that  Satan  would  use 
every  means  possible  to  pervert  its  testimony. 

1.  If  he  can  make  any  believe  that  the  Sunday 
Sabbath  is  contrary  to  the  law,  by  misinterpreting 
the  Sabbath  law  to  mean  only  the  seventh  day  of  the 
week,  he  would  certainly  do  it. 

2.  If  by  thus  misinterpreting  the  Sabbath  law  he 
can  make  Catholics  believe  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath 
was  established  by  the  Catholic  Church,  and  hence  a 
proof  of  her  divine  authority — thus  turning  its  tes- 
timony away  from  the  Resurrection — he  would  cer- 
tainly do  it. 

3.  If  he  can,  through  Adventists,  make  any  believe 
that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  contrary  to  the  Sabbath 
law,  and  only  a  ^^mark  of  the  beast'' — thus  most  ef- 
fectively destroying  its  Resurrection  testimony — he 
would  certainly  do  it. 

'  If  these  devices  serve  Satan's  purpose,  we  can  be 
sure  that  he  would  not  fail  to  use  them,  and  that  wo 
can  make  no  mistake  in  attributing  their  origin  to 
him ;  for  the  more  effective  the  device,  the  more  cer- 
tain he  would  be  to  use  it. 

We  read  in  Rev.  13  :  16.17,  '*And  he  causeth  all, 
both  small  and  great,  rich  and  poor,  free  and  bond, 


THE  MAKK  OF  THE  BEAST  321 

I 
} 

to  receive  a  mark  in  their  right  hand,  or  in  their  fore- 
heads: And  that  no  man  might  buy  or  sell,  save  he 
that  had  the  mark,  or  the  name  of  the  beast,  or  the 
number  of  his  name/* 

The  lamblike  beast,  which  caused  this  marking, 
Adventists  say  is  the  United  States,  and  that  this 
prophecy  will  be  fulfilled  by  the  United  States  pass- 
ing a  compulsory  Sunday  law.  Hence,  it  is  still 
future,  and  if  still  future,  no  one  has  yet  received 
the  ^^mark  of  the  beast,'*  nor  will,  until  this  pro- 
phecy is  fulfilled.  But  if  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  the 
*^mark  of  the  beast,**  and  if  keeping  it  is  receiving 
the  *^mark  of  the  beast,**  then  all  that  have  kept  it 
have  received  the  **mark  of  the  beast.**  This  is  the 
only  logical  conclusion,  and  shows  the  absurdity  of 
the  assumption  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  the 
**mark  of  the  beast*'  referred  to  in  the  passage 
before  us. 

Again  Adventists  say,  that  the  beast  (or  littJe 
horn  of  Daniel  7)  ^^  shall  think  to  change  the  times 
and  the  law**  (Dan.  7  :  25,  R.  V.),  and  since  the 
fourth  commandment  is  the  only  one  that  refers  to 
time,  therefore,  the  word  ** times**  identifies  the 
fourth  commandment,  or  Sabbath  law,  as  the  one 
specially  referred  to,  and  the  plural  form  (times), 
implies  more  than  one  change,  and  therefore  refers 
first,  to  the  change  of  the  beginning  of  the  day  from 
sunset  to  midnight,  and  second,  to  the  change  of  the 
Sabbath  from  Saturday  to  Sunday. 

But  he  *^  shall  think  to  change  the  times  and  the 
law;**  therefore  he  shall  not  actually  change  them, 
but  only  ^^ think  to  change  them.**  Now,  if  God,  who 
is  the  God  of  nature,  made  the  day  to  begin  (as 


322  S.UBBATH     THEOLOGY 

nature  begins  it)  at  midnight,  but  the  Catbolic 
Church  (or  beast)  thinks  by  a  misinterpretation  of 
Scripture,  to  have  changed  it  herself  from  sunset  to 
midnight;  and  if  God  himself  changed  the  Sabbath 
from  Saturday  to  Sunday,  but  the  Catholic  Church 
thinks  to  have  changed  it  herself,  contrary  to  the 
Sabbath  law, — then  the  Catholic  Church  truly 
'^thinks  to  change  the  times  and  the  law/' 

But  if  these  changes,  which  are  now  practically 
actual  facts,  were  really  made  by  the  Catholic 
Church,     then     the     Catholic     Church     not     only 

*  thought''  but  did  change  the  ^^  times  and  the  law." 

Dan.  7  :  25  thus  proves  more  than  Adventists  in- 
tend; for  it  proves  that  the  Catholic  Church  only 

*  thinks"  to  have  changed  the  Sabbath  from  Satur- 
day to  Sunday,  and  therefore,  that  God  himself 
actually  made  the  change.  Otherwise,  the  Catholic 
Church  not  only  thought  but  actually  did  make  the 
change;  for  the  change  is  an  actual  historical  fact 
whoever  made  it.  Prophecy  must  be  fulfilled  in  an 
actual  historical  sense  if  it  has  any  value  as  proph- 
ecy. 

Catholics  claim,  as  Adventists  well  know,  that  the 
Sunday  Sabbath  was  established  by  the  apostles 
themselves,  by  the  authority  which  Christ  himself 
gave  to  His  Church  on  earth,  which  they  claim  is  the 
Catholic  Church;  and  in  this  sense  only  do  they 
claim  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  was  established  by 
the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  only  thus 
that  it  is  a  mark  of  her  authority. 

A  claim  can  only  be  fairly  taken  in  the  sense  in 
which  it  is  meant.  Hence,  to  acknowledge  the  claim, 
as  Adventists  do,  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  was  es- 


THE  MARK  OF  THE  BEAST  323 

f 

tablished  by  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
is  practically  to  acknowledge  the  claim  "back  of  it, 
without  which  it  is  void,  namely,  that  the  Catholic 
Church  is  the  only  true  Church  of  Christ  on  earth. 
Are  Adventists  ready  to  acknowledge  this  last 
claim?  If  not,  they  can  establish  no  argument  out 
of  the  first  claim,  which  is  absolutely  void  when 
separated  from  the  claim  on  which  it  is  based. 

THE  $1,000  EEWAED. 


<< 


I  hereby  offer  Dr.  Duval  one  thousand  dollars 
if  Tie  will  show  me  one  passage  either  in  the  Protes- 
tant or  Catholic  Bible,  in  the  Old  or  New  Testament, 
where  it  tells  us  to  observe  the  Sunday.'' — Father 
Gerritsma,  in  the  Winnipeg  (Manitoba)  Free  Press 
of  April  21,  1910. 

Father  Gerritsma  further  says  in  answer  to  a 
question  asked  by  E.  E.  Wheeler,  Brownlee,  Idaho: 

*^Dear  Sir:  In  answer  to  yours  of  the  8th  inst.,  I 
beg  to  say  that  I  did  make  the  offer  of  $1,000  to 
Rev.  Dr.  Duval.  In  my  discussion  with  him  I  claimed 
that  there  were  600  passages  in  the  Bible  enjoining 
the  observance  of  the  Sabbath  (or  Saturday),  and 
that  not  one  passage  could  be  found  enjoining  the 
observance  of  Sunday  or  the  first  day  of  the  week ;  that 

the  change  of  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day  from 
Saturday  to  Sunday  had  been  made  by  the  church 
in  apostolic  time.  I 

**This  offer  was  first  made  in  St.  Louis,  Mo.,  some 
forty  years  ago,  by  a  Jesuit  Father;  since  then 
hundreds  of  people,  ministers  and  laymen,  have 
tried  to  fulfil  the  condition  of  the  offer,  but  have 


324  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

failed,  because  there  is  no  such  passage  in  the  Bible. '  * 

Yours  truly, 

A.  Gerritsma. 
Winnipeg,  Feb.  28,  1911. 

The  above  is  copied  from  an  Adventist  leaflet  en- 
titled "Sunday  a  Catholic  Holy  Day.''  But  notice 
that  the  claim  of  Father  Gerritsma  is,  that  the 
change  from  Saturday  to  Sunday  was  made  by  the 
(Catholic)  church  in  apostolic  time,  not  by  a  pope 
several  hundred  years  later,  but  by  the  apostles 
themselves.  Will  Adventists  admit  that  the  Sab- 
bath was  changed  from  Saturday  to  Sunday  by  the 
apostles  themselves?  Yet  this  is  all  that  can  be 
made  out  of  the  claim.  The  claim  is  rendered  void 
if  we  ignore  the  claim  back  of  it :  that  the  apostolic 
and  the  Catholic  Church  are  the  same.  How  much 
support  then  does  it  give  to  their  Sunday  mark  of 
the  beast  doctrine? 

Father  Gerritsma  claims  that  there  are  600  pas- 
sages in  the  Bible  enjoining  the  observance  of  the 
Sabbath;  but  aside  from  the  withholding  of  the 
manna  (on  Saturday),  not  one  of  these  passages 
designates  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  and  hence,  in 
themselves,  all  are  just  as  applicable  to  Sunday  as 
to  Saturday.  They  refer  simply  to  the  institution 
of  the  Sabbath,  not  to  the  day  of  the  Sabbath.  The 
only  question  to  decide  is :  Are  we  under  the  manna- 
Exodus  appointment  or  the  Pentecost-Resurrection 
appointment,  as  to  the  day  of  the  Sabbath? 

Adventists  have  printed  and  circulated,  in  sup- 
port of  ^their  Sunday  mark  of  the  beast  doctrine, 
100,000;000  copies  (by  their  own  count)  of  a  similar 


THE  MARK  OF  THE  BEAST  325 

$1,000  offer  made  by  Father  Enright  of  Kansas 
City,  Mo. 

The  $1,000  offer  (in  the  form  in  which  it  is  invari- 
ably worded)  can  be  made  just  as  safely  on  one  side 
of  the  question  as  on  the  other,  for  there  is  no  pas- 
sage in  the  Bible  that  in  itself  determines  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath.  Literally,  any  day  after  six  is  the 
seventh. 

The  day  of  the  Sabbath  is  not  a  question  of  a  defi- 
nite command  (since  there  is  no  definite  command 
fixing  the  day),  but  was  determined  at  the  begin- 
ning of  each  dispensation  by  the  memorable  event 
which,  in  itself,  was  the  starting  point  of  the  dispen- 
sation, and  by  which  the  corresponding  day  of  the 
week  became  the  most  fitting  memorial  day,  and 
therefore  the  most  fitting  day  for  praise  and  wor- 
ship in  that  dispensation;  while  the  Creation  me- 
morial, belonging  to  each  dispensation,  still  re- 
mained in  the  rest  after  six  days  of  labor. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

ANSWER  TO  EOMe's  CHALLENGE 

Rome's  Challenge  is  the  title  of  a  pamphlet  con- 
sisting of  four  articles  written,  in  1893,  by  the  editor 
of  the  Catholic  Mirror  of  Baltimore,  U.  S.  A.,  the 
official  organ  of  the  Eoman  Catholic  Church  in  the 
United  States. 

These  articles,  under  the  above  title,  were  pub- 
lished by  the  Seventh-day  Adventists.  They  were 
afterwards  published  in  pamphlet  form  by  the 
Catholic  Mirror.  We  will  here  quote  from  an  edi- 
torial in  the  Catholic  Mirror  of  Dec.  23,  1893. 

^  ^  The  avidity  with  which  these  editorials  have  been 
sought,  and  the  appearance  of  a  reprint  of  them  by 
the  International  Religious  Liberty  Association 
(Adventist),  published  in  Chicago,  entitled  ^'Rome's 
Challenge;  Why  Do  Protestants  Keep  Sunday T', 
together  with  the  continuous  demand,  have 
prompted  the  Mirror  to  give  permanent  form  to 
them  and  thus  comply  with  the  demand. 

*^The  pages  of  this  brochure  unfold  to  the  reader 
one  of  the  most  glaringly  conceivable  contradictions 
existing  between  the  practice  and  theory  of  the  Pro- 


ANSWER  TO  EOME^S  CHALLENGE  327 

testant  world,  and  unsusceptible  of  any  rational 
solution ;  the  theory  claiming  the  Bible  alone  as  the 
teacher,  which  unequivocally  and  most  positively 
commands  Saturday  to  be  kept  ^holy,'  whilst  their 
practice  proves  that  they  utterly  ignore  the  unequiv- 
ocal requirements  of  their  teacher,  the  Bible,  and 
occupying  Catholic  ground  for  three  centuries  and  a 
half,  by  the  abandonment  of  their  theory,  they  stand 
before  the  world  to-day  the  representatives  of  a  sys- 
tem, the  most  indefensible,  self-contradictory,  and 
suicidal  that  can  be  imagined. 

^^  We  feel  that  we  cannot  interest  our  readers  more 
than  to  produce  the  ^Apendix'  which  the  Interna- 
tional Eeligious  Association,  an  ultra  Protesant  or- 
ganization, has  added  to  the  reprint  of  our  articles. 
The  perusal  of  the  Apendix  will  confirm  the  fact 
that  our  argument  is  unanswerable,  and  that  the 
only  resource  left  the  Protestants  is  either  to  retire 
from  Catholic  territory  where  they  have  been  squat- 
ting for  three  centuries  and  a  half,  and  acceptin^^ 
their  own  teacher,  the  Bible,  in  good  faith,  as  so 
clearly  suggested  by  the  writer  of  the  *  Apendix,' 
commence  forthwith  to  keep  the  Saturday — the  day 
enjoined  by  the  Bible  from  Genesis  to  Revelation; 
or,  abandoning  the  Bible  as  their  sole  teacher,  cease 
to  be  squatters,  and  a  living  contradiction  of  their 
own  principles,  and  taking  out  letters  of  adoption  as 
citizens  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  on  earth — his 
Church — be  no  longer  victims  of  self-delusion  and 
necessary  self-contradiction. 

**The  arguments  contained  in  this  pamphlet  are 
firmly  grounded  on  the  word  of  God,  and  having 
been  closely  studied  with  the  Bible  in  h^nd,  leave  no 


328  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

escape  for  tlie  conscientious  Protestant  except  aban- 
donment of  Sunday  worship  and  the  return  to  Sat- 
urday, as  commanded  by  their  teacher,  the  Bible,  or, 
unwilling  to  abandon  the  tradition  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  which  enjoins  the  keeping  of  Sunday,  and 
which  they  have  accepted  in  direct  opposition  to 
their  teacher,  the  Bible,  consistently  accept  her  in 
all  her  teachings.  Keason  and  common  sense  de- 
mand the  acceptance  of  one  or  the  other  of  these 
alternatives:  either  Protestantism  and  the  keeping 
holy  of  Saturday,  or  Catholicity  and  the  keeping  of 
Sunday.    Compromise  is  impossible. ' ' 

To  the  above  we  will  add  some  further  boastings 
of  the  Catholic  Church : 

*'The  Bible  says,  'Remember  that  thou  keep  holy 
the  Sabbath  day.'  The  Catholic  Church  says,  *No! 
By  my  divine  power  I  abolish  the  Sabbath  day,  and 
command  you  to  keep  holy  the  first  day  of  the  week.* 
And,  lo,  the  entire  civilized  world  bows  down  in  rev- 
erent obedience  to  the  command  of  the  holy  Catholic 
Church!'' — Father  Enright,  C.  S.  S.  R.  of  Redemp- 
torist  College,  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  in  American  Senti- 
nel, June  1, 1893.. 

*' Sunday  as  a  day  of  the  week  set  apart  for  the 
obligatory  public  worship  of  almighty  God  *  *  * 
is  purely  a  creation  of  the  Catholic  Church." — Am. 
Cath.  Quar.  Review,  Jan.,  1883. 

* '  The  observance  of  Sunday  by  the  Protestants  is 
an  homage  they  pay  in  spite  of  themselves  to  the 
authority  of  the  (Catholic)  Church.'' — Plain  Talk 
for  Protestants,  page  213. 

''The  Catholic  Church  changed  the  day  of  rest 
from  the  last  to  the  first  day  of  the  week  because  the 


ANSWER  TO  Rome's  challenge  329 

most  memorable  of  Christ's  works  was  accomplished 
on  Sunday.  They  (Protestants)  cannot  prove  their 
point  from  Scripture,  therefore,  if  sincere,  they  must 
acknowledge  that  they  draw  their  observance  of 
Sunday  from  tradition,  and  are,  therefore,  weekly 
contradicting  themselves.' ' — Cardinal  Gibbons,  in  a 
letter  to  E.  E.  Frank,  dated  Oct.  3, 1889. 

All  of  the  above  quotations  are  taken  from  Adven- 
tist  literature.  In  flaunting  these  Catholic  asser- 
tions to  prove  their  ^'Mark  of  the  Beast"  doctrine, 
Adventists  would  do  well  to  bear  in  mind  the  claim 
that  lies  back  of  them ;  viz.,  that  the  Catholic  Church 
and  the  Apostolic  Church  are  one  and  the  same; 
and,  therefore,  to  recognize  one  claim  is  to  recog- 
nize the  other. 

But,  blind  to  their  own  folly,  note  how  Adventists 
vie  with  Catholics,  as  allies  to  the  same  end,  both 
striving  to  make  the  Sunday  Sabbath  the  mark  of 
Roman  Catholic  authority;  and  in  so  far  as  they 
succeed,  its  Resurrection  testimony  is  lost  sight  of. 
Can  anything  be  in  more  perfect  harmony  with 
Satan's  wishes,  who  raves  at  every  reminder  of 
the  Resurrection,  and  whose  sole  aim  in  regard  to 
the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  to  destroy  its  Resurrection 
testimony? 

r  Note  the  almost  raving  demand  of  the  editor  of 
the  Catholic  Mirror,  that  Protestants  give  up  the 
Sunday  Sabbath  or  recognize  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  But  first,  we  would  like  to  know 
how  Protestants  are  to  give  up  the  Sunday  Sab- 
bath without  recognizing  the  authority  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church  ? 


330  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Catholics  find  no  direct  command  in  the  Bible  for 
the  Sunday  Sabbath,  hence  they  claim  that  it  was 
established  by  the  apostles.  But  they  claim,  also, 
that  the  apostles  founded  the  Catholic  Church; 
hence  they  claim  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  was  es- 
tablished by  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  (or  Apos- 
tolic) Church  in  its  appointment  by  the  apostles 
themselves — not  by  a  pope  hundreds  of  years  later, 
as  Adventists  claim  to  suit  their  own  theory. 

To  give  up  the  Sunday  Sabbath,  because  Catholics 
claim  that  it  was  established  by  the  authority  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  is  to  acknowledge  that  claim; 
which,  in  turn,  is  to  acknowledge  the  claim  back  of 
it  on  which  it  is  based,  namely,  that  the  Catholic 
Church  is  the  only  Christian  Church ;  which,  in  turn, 
is  to  acknowledge  that  Protestants  have  no  right  to 
the  title  of  Christian  Church. 

This  is,  practically,  the  acknowledgment  Adven- 
tists make.  The  only  possible  way  for  Protestants 
to  repudiate  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
Church  on  this  question  is  for  them  to  keep  the  Sun- 
day Sabbath.  Keeping  it,  as  they  do,  in  recognition 
of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ  is  not  keeping  it  in 
recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

Catholics  keep  the  Sunday  Sabbath  primarily  in 
recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church 
and  only  secondarily,  if  at  all,  in  recognition  of  the 
Resurrection  of  Christ.  Protestants  keep  the  Sun- 
day Sabbath  solely  in  recognition  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion of  Christ  without  marring  its  Resurrection  lus- 
ter by  the  recognition  of  any  human  authority. 

The  keeping  of  the  Sunday  Sabbath  by  Protes- 
tants, instead  of  being  (as  claimed)  a  recognition  of 


ANSWEE  TO  ROME^S  CHALLENGE  331 

the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church,  only  accentu- 
ates their  non-recognition.  Else  why  this  ranting 
and  raving  against  the  Protestants  for  keeping  the 
Sunday  Sabbath? 

In  all  of  the  above  quotations,  it  is  most  unequivo- 
cally claimed  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  was  estab- 
lished by  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Then  for  Protestants  to  give  up  the  Sunday  Sabbath, 
in  the  face  of  these  claims,  would  be  a  most  positive 
acknowledgment  on  their  part  that  the  Sunday  Sab- 
bath was  established  by  the  Catholic  Clmrch,  and 
not  by  the  Resurrection.  The  effect  of  this  ac- 
knowledgment would  be  to  turn  the  testimony  of  the 
Sunday  Sabbath  away  from  the  Resurrection  to  the 
authority  of  the  Catholic  Church,  which  would,  no 
doubt,  be  highly  satisfactory  to  his  ^'Satanic  ma- 
jesty.'' 

We  have  given  abundant  proof,  in  the  preceding 
chapters,  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  the  only  Sab- 
bath that  has  now  any  Bible  authority  in  a  day  ap- 
pointed sense. 

In  replying  to  ^  ^  Rome 's  Challenge, ' '  we  may  state 
at  the  outset  that  it  contains  no  original  arguments, 
but  only  the  already  threadbare  arguments  of  the 
Seventh-day  Adventists.  All  of  which  we  have  al- 
ready fully  discussed. 

We  will  quote  from  Rome's  Challenge,  page  11:' 
^'Thus  the  Sabbath  (Saturday)  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation;''  page  5,  *^The  Bible,  which,  from  Gene- 
sis to  Revelation,  teaches  no  other  doctrine;"  page 
24,  ^^ God's  written  word  enjoins  his  worship  to  be 
observed  on  Saturday,  absolutely,  repeatedly,  and 
most  emphatically." 


332  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

These  assertions  necessarily  assume  that  the  Sab- 
bath law,  or  fourth  commandment,  in  itself,  fixed  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  (Saturday)  as  the  only  true 
Sabbath.  The  only  argument  attempted  to  sustain 
this  assumption  was  the  fact  that  the  Jews  have 
kept  the  Saturday  Sabbath  in  unbroken  succession 
from  the  giving  of  the  Law  to  the  present  time. 
This,  however,  does  not  prove  that  the  day  of  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  was  not  fixed  by  the  manna,  instead 
of  by  the  Sabbath  law;  for  the  day  was  fixed  by  the 
manna  sometime  before  the  Law  was  given  on  Sinai. 

We  quote  again  from  Rome's  Challenge  (pages  9, 
10),  ^'The  Bible  being  the  only  teacher  recognized 
by  the  Biblical  Christian,  the  Old  Testament  failing 
to  point  out  a  change  of  day,  and  yet  another  day 
than  Saturday  being  kept  'holy'  by  the  Biblical 
world,  it  is  surely  incumbent  on  the  reformed  Chris- 
tians to  point  out  in  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament 
the  new  divine  decrees  repealing  that  of  Saturday 
and  substituting  that  of  Sunday. ' ' 

It  is  plain  to  be  seen,  that  behind  this  quotation  is 
the  assumption  that  the  Sabbath  law,  or  fourth  com- 
mandment, was  the  decree  of  God  establishing  the 
Saturday  Sabbath.  We  have  already  shown  that 
the  Saturday  Sabbath  was  established  by  the  manna, 
and  not  by  the  Sabbath  law,  and  therefore  there  is  no 
decree,  establishing  Saturday  as  the  Sabbath,  to  be 
repealed. 

If  the  Saturday  Sabbath  was  not  established  by  a 
decree,  but  by  God's  providence  in  the  Exodus  as 
the  reason  for,  and  in  the  manna  as  the  appointment 
of,  then  we  can  only,  in  reason,  look  to  God's  provi- 
dence for  the  establishment  of  the  Sunday  Sabbath ; 


ANSWER  TO  Rome's  challenge  333 

and  we  find  it  in  the  Resurrection  as  the  season  for, 
and  in  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at  Pente- 
cost as  the  appointment  of.  The  providence  is  as 
clear  and  unmistakable  in  the  latter  case  as  in  the 
former.    What  more  can  be  demanded? 

The  Saturday  Sabbath,  as  commemorative  of  the 
Exodus,  was  distinctly  and  only  Jewish,  and  there- 
fore only  a  Jewish  ordinance,  and  Paul  definitely  in- 
cluded it  in  the  ordinances  that  were  blotted  out 
find  nailed  to  the  cross  (Col.  2  :  14-16). 

This  is  sufficient  repeal,  if  repeal  were  necessary ; 
and,  if  repealed,  a  new  day-fixing  providence  is  ne- 
cessary to  fix  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  from  that  point 
onward.  What  was  the  Providence?  Only  one 
answer  is  possible — the  Resurrection.  Therefore 
the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  the  only  Sabbath  that  has 
now  any  Bible  authority  in  a  day  appointed  sense. 

When  Catholics  and  Adventists  prove  that  the 
Saturday  Sabbath  was  established  by  a  decree  of 
God,  instead  of  by  His  providence,  it  will  be  time 
enough  for  them  to  demand  that  Protestants  point 
out  a  decree  repealing  that  of  Saturday  and  sub- 
stituting that  of  Sunday. 

We  quote  again  from  Homers  Challenge,  (page 
10),  *^In  one  instance,  the  Redeemer  refers  to  him- 
self as  the  ^Lord  of  the  Sabbath,'  but  during  the 
whole  record  of  his  life,  whilst  invariably  keeping 
and  utilizing  the  day  (Saturday),  he  never  once 
hinted  at  a  desire  to  change  it/' 

Christ  said,  ^^The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and 
not  man  for  the  Sabbath.  Therefore  the  Son  of 
man  is  Lord  also  of  the  Sabbath."  (Mark  2  :  27,28. 


334  Sabbath    theology 

See  also  Matt.  12  :  8  and  Luke  6:5.)  Christ's 
claim  to  the  title  is  here  based  on  the  fact,  that  as 
the  (one  only  universal)  Son  of  man,  He  was  the 
rightful  Lord  of  that  which  was  made  for  man's 
good.  Christ  is  ''Lord  of  the  Sabbath,''  not  only 
as  the  Son  of  man,  but  also  as  the  Son  of  God  who 
instituted  the  Sabbath.  He  who  instituted  the  Sab- 
bath surely  best  knows  the  true  meaning  and  pur- 
pose of  the  Sabbath,  and  He  said, ' '  The  Sabbath  was 
made  for  man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath."  He 
also  best  knows  the  true  meaning  of  the  Sabbath 
law.  If  the  Sabbath  law  was  never  intended  to  fix 
the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  then  we  can  be  sure  that  He 
referred  to  the  institution,  not  the  day,  when  He 
claimed  to  be  ''Lord  of  the  Sabbath."  Yet  at  the 
same  time.  He  undoubtedly  recognized  the  existing 
day  of  the  Sabbath  as  the  day  then  in  force  by  rea 
son  of  the  manna  appointment.  The  fact  that 
.Christ  himself  kept  the  Jewish  Sabbath  before  His 
9eath  argues  nothing;  for  it  would  be  absurd  to  ex- 
pect Him  needlessly  to  change  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath before  the  proper  time,  and  to  make  it  the  me- 
morial of  the  Resurrection  before  the  fact  existed. 
He  came  to  fulfil  the  law,  and  so  kept  the  Jewish 
Sabbath  and  all  the  rest  of  the  ceremonial  law,  til] 
it  was  fulfilled  in  Himself  on  the  cross.  Just  as  well 
argue  that  we  must  keep  all  of  the  ceremonial  law 
because  He  kept  it,  as  that  we  must  keep  the  Jew^ 
ish  Sabbath  because  He  kept  it. 

Christ  was  on  earth  for  forty  days  after  His  resur- 
rection (Acts  1  :  3),  yet  there  is  not  the  slightest 
hint  that  He  recognized  the  Jewish  Sabbath  during 
that  time;  but  we  have  two  distinct  records  of  His 


ANSWER  TO  Rome's  challenge  335 

j 

4 

meeting  with  the  disciples  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week.— Luke  24  :  33-40  and  John  20  :  25-29,  (both 
of  which  are  recognized  by  the  author  of  Rome's 
Challenge).  It  is  objected  that  there  is  no  mention 
of  prayer,  praise^  or  reading  of  the  scriptures  at 
these  meetings,  and  therefore  that  they  did  not  meet 
for  worship. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  what  those  meetings  were 
for,  but  what  they  ivere.  What  need  was  there  for 
reading  the  scriptures  when  the  great  teacher  was  in 
their  midst  ?  And  what  need  for  formal  prayer  and 
praise  when  their  hearts  were  flowing  over  with 
prayer  and  praise!  But  in  the  first  meeting  it  is 
plainly  stated  (Luke  24  :  44-46)  that  He  explained  to 
them  the  law  and  the  prophets,  and  opened  their 
understanding  that  they  might  understand  the 
scriptures;  and  in  the  second  meeting  Thomas  was 
converted,  and  we  can  be  sure  that  only  matters  of 
the  highest  spiritual  importance  were  discussed. 

However,  it  is  not  the  character  of  the  meetings, 
but  the  recognition  of  the  day,  that  is  the  point  in 
question;  and  the  fact  stands,  that  there  were  at 
least  two  occasions  on  which  Christ  met  with  the 
disciples  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  after  His  Res- 
urrection, but  not  a  single  hint  that  He  met  with 
them  on  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  This  fact  implies,  at 
least,  that  He  recognized  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  to 
be  changed. 

Why  did  not  Christ  after  the  Eesurrection  estab- 
lish the  Sunday  Sabbath?  It  was  already  estab- 
lished in  the  Resurrection,  so  far  as  the  event  fur- 
nishing the  reason  was  concerned.  If  the  Sabbath 
law  did  not  ^x  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  then  Christ 


336  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

could  not  give  a  command  changing  the  day  without 
misinterpreting  the  Sababth  law,  and  this  is  suffici- 
ent reason  why  He  gave  no  command  for  changing 
the  day.  If  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  not  fixed  by 
law,  we  could  not  expect  the  Sunday  Sabbath  to  be 
fixed  by  law. 

Christ  said  to  His  disciples,  just  before  His 
death,  ^  ^  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you,  but 
ye  cannot  bear  them  now.  Howbeit  when  he,  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all 
truth:  *  *  *  and  he  will  show  you  things  to 
come.''  (John  16  :  12,13).  Christ  then  left  many 
things  to  be  revealed  to  them  by  the  Spirit  of  Truth, 
after  his  departure,  because,  evidently,  they  were 
not  yet  sufficiently  spiritually  minded,  and  were  still 
too  wrapped  up  in  Jewish  prejudices  to  receive 
them. 

The  Jewish  Sabbath  w^as  to  the  Jews  their  most 
sacred  institution.  Now,  if  Christ  had  positively 
and  definitely  made  Sunday  the  Christian  Sabbath, 
that  fact  would,  under  the  circumstances,  have  be- 
come to  the  Jews  the  most  prominent  issue  of  the 
Gospel,  overshadowing  the  one  all  important  issue. 
Christ  commanded  the  disciples  to  preach  the  Gos- 
pel, not  the  Sabbath.  What  effect  would  their 
preaching  have  on  the  Jews  (to  whom  they  were  first 
sent)  if  they  had  to  overcome  their  Sabbath  preju- 
dices before  they  would  even  listen  to  the  Gospel? 

Since  the  fixed  day  element  of  the  Sabbath  was  an 
economic,  not  a  moral  element,  then,  from  an  econ- 
omic standpoint,  in  view  of  the  economic  conditions 
involved,  manifestly  the  most  natural  and  effective 
method  of  establishing  the  Sunday  Sabbath  without 


ANSWER  TO  Rome's  challenge  337 

needlessly  retarding  the  early  progress  of  tlie  Gos- 
pel, and  without  giving  the  first  day  economic  ele- 
ment undue  prominence — detracting  from  the  one 
all  important  issue — was  for  the  Spirit  of  truth  to 
lead  gradually  the  Jewish  Christians  into  the  true 
understanding  of  God^s  purpose  in  regard  to  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath  by  gradually  removing  their 
Jewish  prejudices, — which  in  the  nature  of  things 
could  not  at  once  be  removed, — and  thus  allowing, 
by  natural  process,  the  Jewish  Sabbath  to  give  place 
to  the  Christian  Sabbath.  This  is  evidently  the  only 
natural  method,  and  if  the  best  method,  as  history 
testifies,  we  can  be  sure  that  it  was  the  only  method 
Christ  would  have  used,  for  He  would  have  used 
only  the  best  method. 

Because  God  often  brings  His  purposes  to  pass 
gradually  does  not  prove  that  the  purposes  were  not 
definite  in  His  mind  at  the  beginning.  Then  because 
the  change  of  the  day  of  the  Sababth  was  brought  to 
pass  gradually  does  not  prove  that  the  change  did 
not  definitely  take  place  in  God's  purpose  at  the 
Kesurrection.  Jewish  Christians  continued  to  ob- 
serve all  the  Jewish  ordinances  for  many  years 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  but  this  does  not  prove 
that  they  were  not  blotted  out  and  nailed  to  the 
cross,  as  Paul  said,  in  Col.  2  :  14. 

If  Christ  held  the  view  in  regard  to  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath  that  Catholics  and  Adventists  hold,  i.  e., 
that  the  fixed  day  element  of  the  Sabbath  was  the  all 
essential  point  of  the  Sabbath  law,  and  could  not  be 
changed  without  repealing  that  law  and  substitut- 
ing another.  He  undoubtedly  would  have  done  so  (as 
He  had  authority  to  do)  if  He  meant  to  change  the 


338  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

day.    The  fact  that  He  did  not,  only  proves  that  He 
held  no  such  narrow  view. 

On  the  other  hand,  if,  in  the  mind  of  Christ,  the 
exact  day  of  the  Sabbath  was  only  an  economic,  not 
a  moral  element,  and  therefore  not  involved  in  the 
moral  law,  and  that  changing  the  day  in  no  sense 
changed  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  or  the  moral 
law,  and  since  He  foreknew  that  the  change  would 
come  to  pass,  as  it  has  come  to  pass,  what  occasion 
was  there  for  Him  to  even  hint  at  a  desire  to  change 
it  I 

Now,  since  Adventists  and  Catholics  are  so  free 
to  ask  ^^why  Christ  did  not  change  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath, '^  we  will  ask,  ^^Why  did  He  not  warn  the 
disciples  against  the  change  (since  He  foreknew  it) 
when  He  warned  them,  in  Matthew  24,  in  regard  to 
less  important  matters,  if  the  change  of  the  day  of 
the  Sabbath  was  the  greatest  calamity  that  ever  be- 
fell the  Church  (as  Adventists  think)?  Whatever 
answer  they  may  give  may  possibly  answer  their 
own  question.  In  the  first  case,  there  was  no  need ; 
but  in  the  second  case  there  was,  if  the  supposition 
be  true. 

It  is  not  necessary  here  to  notice  the  less  import- 
ant arguments  attempted  in  Rome's  Challenge,  since 
they  have  all  been  fully  answered  in  the  preceding 
chapters. 

liowever,  in  regard  to  Eev.  1  :  10,  Acts  20  :  7 
and  1  Cor.  16  :  2,  we  will  add  the  testimonv  of  the 
Catholic  Dictionary  by  Addis  and  Arnold,  which, 
after  noting  the  above  references,  says,  that  '  ^  These 
texts  seem  to  indicate  that  Sunday  was  already  a 
sacred  day  on  which  deeds  of  love  were  specially 


ANSWER  TO  Rome's  challenge  339 

suitable.  Heb.  10  :  25  sbows  this  much,  that  the 
Christians,  when  the  epistle  was  written,  had  regu- 
lar days  of  assembling.  The  scriptural  references 
given  above  show  that  the  observance  of  Sunday 
had  begun  in  the  apostolic  age :  but  even  were  scrip- 
ture silent,  tradition  would  put  this  point  beyond 
all  doubt."  Thus  ^^ Rome's  Challenge^ ^  contradicts 
the  Catholic  Dictionary.  Which  is  the  best  Catho- 
lic authority? 

Rome's  Challenge  stands  wholly  on  an  assumed 
foundation,  namely,  that  the  fourth  Commandment 
fixed  the  day  of  the  Sabbath.  But  it  is  necessary  to 
prove  the  foundation  before  the  arguments  can  be 
called  arguments.  This  the  author  does  not  even 
attempt  to  do. 

To  'prove  the  foundation,  the  author  must  first 
prove  that  God  rested  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  first 
week  of  time.  To  prove  this,  he  must  prove  that 
time  began  with  the  first  day  of  Creation.  To  do 
this,  he  must  prove,  in  the  face  of  the  Bible,  nature, 
and  reason,  that  the  Creation  days  were  twenty-four 
hour  days.  Then  he  must  prove  that  God  did  not  fix 
the  day  of  the  Sabbath  for  the  Israelites  by  His 
providence  in  the  giving  of  the  manna  instead  of  by 
His  law.  Then  he  must  prove  that  the  words  ^^of 
the  week'^  after  ^^ seventh  day,"  in  the  Law,  are  nec- 
essarily understood.  To  do  this,  he  must  prove: 
first,  That  in  Gen.  2  :  3,  God  sanctified  the  seventh 
day  on  which  He  rested,  not  to  the  completion  of  the 
Creation  model  to  be  copied,  but  in  a  fixed  day 
sense  only;  second.  That  in  Ex.  20  :  10,  the  word 
*^ wherefore"  refers,  not  to  the  whole  unbroken 
clause  including  the  entire  Creation  week  as  a  model, 


340  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

9  I 

but  only  to  tliat  part  of  it  referring  to  the  seventli 
day  on  which.  God  rested,  as  the  reason  for  blessing 
the  Sabbath  day.  And,  finally,  unless  he  has  fully 
established  every  point  so  far,  he  must  prove  that  he 
has  a  divine  commission  to  insert  the  words  ^^of  the 
week,''  which  God  accidentally  (?)  omitted. 

The  author  of  Rome's  Challenge,  on  page  6,  says, 
'^Neither  is  the  discussion  of  this  paramount  sub- 
ject above  the  capacity  of  ordinary  minds,  nor  does 
it  involve  extraordinary  study.  It  resolves  itself 
into  a  few  plain  questions  easy  of  solution : — 

1.  Which  day  of  the  week  does  the  Bible  enjoin 
to  be  kept  holy? 

2.  Has  the  New  Testament,  modified  by  precept 
or  practice,  the  original  command? 

3.  Have  Protestants,  since  the  sixteenth  century, 
obeyed  the  command  of  God  by  keeping  ^'holy''  the 
day  enjoined  by  their  infallible  guide  and  teacher, 
the  Bible?  and  if  not,  why  not? 

'*To  the  above  three  questions  we  pledge  our- 
selves to  furnish  as  many  intelligent  answers,  which 
cannot  fail  to  vindicate  the  truth  and  uphold  the  de- 
formity of  error." 

In  spite  of  his  flaunted  vindication  of  truth,  the 
truth  confronts  him,  that  until  he  proves  the  assump- 
tion (that  the  Sabbath  law  fixes  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath) which  is  plainly  behind  each  one  of  these  ques- 
tions, and  which  he  has  not  even  attempted  to  prove, 
he  has  not  (yet)  furnished  a  single  intelligent 
answer  to  any  one  of  them. 

Rome's  Challenge  concludes  with  the  following 
(character   study)    remarks,   *^  Should   any   of  the 


ANSWER  TO  Rome's  challenge  341 

reverend  parsons,  who  are  habituated  to  howl  so 
vociferously  over  every  real  or  assumed  desecration 
of  that  pious  fraud,  the  Bible  Sabbath,  think  well  of 
entering  a  protest  against  our  logical  and  scriptural 
dissection  of  their  mongrel  pet,  we  can  promise  them 
that  any  reasonable  attempt  on  their  part  to  gather 
up  the  disjecta  membra  of  the  hybrid,  and  to  restore 
to  it  a  galvanized  existence,  will  be  met  with  genuine 
cordiality  and  respectful  consideration  on  our  part. 

^^But  we  can  assure  our  readers  that  we  know 
the  reverent  hov/lers  too  well  to  expect  a  solitary 
bark  from  them  in  this  instance.  And  they  know  us 
too  well  to  subject  themselves  to  the  mortification 
which  a  further  dissection  of  this  anti-scriptural 
question  would  necessarily  entail.  Their  policy  now 
it  to  'lay  low'  and  they  are  sure  to  adopt  it.'' 

Rome's  Challenge  is  published  by  the  Seventh-day 
Adventists  in  support  of  their  **Mark  of  the  Beast" 
doctrine.  Their  pamphlet  entitled,  ''The  Seal  of 
God  and  the  Mark  of  the  Beast"  (page  22),  says, 
"This  {Rome's  Challenge)  has  been  scattered 
broadcast  over  the  United  States,  and  of  the  mil- 
lions of  professed  Protestants,  we  have  yet  to  know 
of  the  first  one  to  rise  up  and  deny  these  things  and 
give  proof  for  the  denial." 

Since  Rome^s  Challenge  contains  no  original  argu- 
ments, but  is  even  far  inferior  to  any  of  the  Adven- 
tist's  own  standard  works  on  the  subject,  therefore, 
any  sufficient  answer  to  the  Adventists,  of  which 
there  are  a  number,  is  also  a  sufficient  answer  to 
it ;  and  the  mere  fact  that  no  one  has  taken  sufficient 
notice  of  it  to  answer  it,  certainly  need  not  be  taken 
as  proof  of  its  unansw^erable  character. 


342  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

/  We  have  answered  it  here,  merely  because  it  fur- 
nishes a  remarkable  proof  of  the  alliance  between 
the  Catholics  and  Adventists  in  their  mutual  effort 
to  destroy  the  Kesurrection  testimony  of  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath,  by  trying  to  make  it  testify  to  the 
authority  of  the  Catholic  Church  instead. 

Knowing  that  it  is  the  power  of  the  Eesurrection 
that  makes  Satan  tremble,  and  that  he  raves  at 
every  reminder  of  it,  and  that  his  only  purpose  in 
regard  to  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  to  destroy  its  Ees- 
urrection testimony,  and  that,  if  he  can  make  people 
believe  that  it  is  the  mark  of  his  own  authority  or 
the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church,  he  has  most 
effectively  accomplished  his  purpose,  we  can  be  sure 
that  the  efforts  of  Catholics  and  Adventists  meet 
with  his  most  hearty  approval.  Their  avowed  an- 
tagonism only  makes  their  alliance  all  the  more  ef- 
fective to  the  carrying  out  of  Satan's  purpose. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


THE  DECALOGUE 


The  Bible  plainly  states  that  the  Decalogue,  or 
Ten  Commandments,  was  spoken  by  the  voice  of 
God  (Ex.  20  : 1),  and  written  by  the  finger  of  God  on 
tables  of  stone  (Ex.  31  :  18).  No  other  code  of 
laws  on  record  was  ever  thus  so  directly  transmitted 
from  God  to  man.  This  fact  naturally  gives  it  pre- 
eminence as  a  summary  of  God 's  moral  law. 

Because  it  was  given  to  the  Israelites  makes  it 
no  less  a  summary  of  the  moral  law,  for  moral  laws 
are  unchangeable  in  their  nature  so  long  as  the  rea- 
sons therefor  exist.  If  it  was  once  a  summary  of 
God's  moral  law  for  man,  then  it  must  ever  remain 
so;  for  God  never  changes,  and  man's  moral  rela- 
tion to  God  and  to  his  fellow-man  is  ever  the  same. 
If  the  Decalogue  expressed  man's  moral  relation  to 
God  and  to  his  fellow-man  at  the  time  it  was  given, 
then  it  can  never  cease  to  express  that  relation  so 
long  as  that  relation  exists.  The  exact  wording  of 
the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  or  their  exact  order  is 
a  matter  of  no  consequence,  so  long  as  the  meaning 
is  unchanged. 


344  SABBATH     theology"^ 

Those  wlio  tliink  to  abolisli  the  Decalogue  as  be-^ 
longing  only  to  the  Old  Testament,  immediately  re- 
store all  but  the  Sabbath  precept  in  language  of  the 
New  Testament,  claiming  that  there  is  no  precept 
in  the  New  Testament  for  the  Sabbath. 

Adventists  fitly  liken  this  process  to  cutting  off  ten 
fingers  to  get  rid  of  a  bad  one,  and  sticking  nine 
back  on  again;  and  no  amount  of  ridicule  can  de- 
stroy the  force  of  this  illustration.  Abolishing  a 
precept  and  immediately  restoring  the  sense  of  it  is 
not  abolishing  it  in  any  real  sense.  Such  trans- 
actions would  contradict  God's  nature. 

If  God  abolished  the  Decalogue,  or  any  part  of 
it,  then  it  was  abolished  in  a  real,  not  in  an  unreal, 
sense.  Will  any  one  assert  that  the  moral  principles 
involved  in  the  Decalogue  were  abolished?  or  that 
the  exact  wording  of  its  precepts  is  essential?  or 
object  to  the  wording  as  given  in  Exodus  20?  Un- 
less the  wording  of  the  Decalogue  in  Exodus  20  can 
be  improved  on,  there  is  no  reason  to  object  to  it 
as  there  worded. 

Why  should  Christ  re-enact  the  Sabbath  precept 
if  it  was  never  repealed,  and  especially  as  it  was 
already  abused  in  overstrict  observance?  Christ's 
claiming  to  be  ^^Lord  of  the  Sabbath"  (Mark  2  :  28), 
his  efforts  to  correct  the  prevalent  abuses  of  the 
Sabbath  (Matt.  12  :  1-13;  John  5  :  2-11;  9  :  6-14), 
and  his  teaching  the  true  purpose  and  nature  of  the 
Sabbath  (Mark  2  :  23-27),  prove,  unmistakably,  that 
he  recognized  the  Sabbath  precept  as  then  in  force 
and  that  he  had  no  intention  of  abolishing  it. 

The  evident  purpose  of  the  doctrine  that  the  Deca- 
logue was  abolished  and  reinstated  in  the  New  Testa- 


THE  DECALOGUE  345 

ment  with  the  Sabbath  precept  left  out,  is  to  get  rid 
of  the  Sabbath  precept  in  order  to  get  rid  of  the 
.Tewish  Sabbath, — thinking  thus  to  harmonize  the 
fact  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished.  Those 
who  hold  this  doctrine,  evidently  read  the  Sabbath 
precept,  just  as  Adventists  do,  as  if  it  said,  ^'The 
seventh  day  of  the  week  is  the  Sabbath,"  whereas, 
it  says,  *^The  seventh  day  is  the  Sabbath;'^  thus 
confusing  the  economic,  or  fixed  day,  element  of 
the  Sabbath  with  the  moral,  or  every  seventh  day, 
element,  and  failing  to  recognize  the  fact  that  the 
Sabbath  precept,  as  a  part  of  the  moral  law,  deals 
only  with  the  moral  element  of  the  Sabbath. 

If  the  day  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  fixed  by  the 
giving  of  the  manna,  and  not  by  the  Sabbath  pre- 
cept, then  the  Jewish  (seventh  day  of  the  week) 
Sabbath  could  be  abolished  without  affecting  the 
Sabbath  precept. 

In  Eom.  3  :  31,  Paul  saj^s,  *^Do  we  then  make  void 
the  law  through  faith?  God  forbid:  Yea,  we  estab- 
lish the  law.'^  Here  Paul  distinctly  denies  any  in- 
tention of  teaching  that  the  law  was  abolished.  Now, 
in  the  face  of  his  plain  denial,  it  would  be  unfair  to 
interpret  any  of  his  writings  to  mean  the  abolition 
of  the  law.  We  may,  however,  safely  infer  that  he 
meant  the  moral  law,  not  the  ceremonial  law,  when 
he  said,  ^'Yea,  we  establish  the  law;''  for  he  plainly 
teaches  that  the  ceremonial  law  was  abolished.  And 
no  one  questions  the  fact  that  the  ceremonial  law, 
which  consisted  of  types  and  shadows,  was  fulfilled 
and  ended  in  Christ,  and  therefore  abolished. 

In  Eph.  2  :  15,  in  referring  to  Christ,  Paul  said, 
^'Having  abolished  in  his  flesh  the  enmity,  even  the 


346  '  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

law  of  commandments  contained  in  ordinances;" 
and  again,  in  Col.  2  :  14,  ^^  Blotting  out  the  hand- 
writing of  ordinances  that  was  against  ns,  which 
was  contrary  to  us,  and  took  it  out  of  the  way,  nail- 
ing it  to  his  cross." 

The  specific,  or  distinctive,  meaning  of  ordinance 
is,  ^^An  established  rite  or  ceremony."  That  Paul 
used  the  word  in  this  sense  is  evident ;  for,  if  he 
meant  the  whole  law,  why  did  he  specify  the  **  com- 
mandments contained  in  ordinances!"  He  thus 
specified,  or  distinguished,  certain  commandments 
from  others  not  contained  in  ordinances ;  but  unless 
he  used  the  word  in  its  specific,  or  distinctive,  sense, 
he  could  not  thus  make  a  distinction.  Besides,  Paul 
always  uses  the  word  ^ '  law ' '  in  referring  to  the  law 
in  general,  or  to  the  moral  part  of  it.  Hence,  when 
he  uses  the  word  *^ ordinances,"  he  can  only  refer  to 
the  ceremonial  part  of  the  law.  Lastly,  we  must 
remember  that  Paul  distictly  denied  any  intention 
of  teaching  that  the  moral  law  was  abolished,  and  we 
must  not  make  him  contradict  himself. 

1. — In  Bom.  14  :  5,  Paul  says,  *'One  man  esteem- 
eth  one  day  above  another :  another  esteemeth  every 
day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his 
own  mind." 

2. — Col.  2  :  16,  *^Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you 
in  meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  an  holy  day, 
or  of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  Sabbath  days." 

3. — Gal.  4  :  10,11,  ^^Ye  observe  days,  and  months, 
and  times,  and  years.  I  am  afraid  of  you,  lest  I 
have  bestowed  upon  you  labor  in  vain." 

These  three  texts  are  supposed  by  some  to  teach, 


THE  DECALOGUE  347 

by  inference,  that  tlie  Sabbath  law  was  abolished. 
They  certainly  do  teach  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
was  abolished.  The  most,  however,  that  can  justly 
be  inferred  (so  far  as  the  Sabbath  question  was  in- 
volved) is  that  Paul  meant  to  teach,  not  that  the 
Sabbath  law  was  abolished,  but  that  it  did  not  fix  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath,  and  that  the  Sabbath  was  not 
intended  to  be  a  burden  but  a  blessing.  And  thus 
Paul's  teaching  was  in  perfect  harmony  with  the 
Sabbath  law,  and  with  Christ's  teaching  when  He 
said,  ^  ^  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath."  Paul  was  contending  against  the 
influence  of  the  Judaizers,  as  the  whole  connection 
shows;  and  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  plainly  one  of 
the  questions  involved. 

Perhaps  the  first  text  (Rom.  14  :  5)  most  clearly 
shows  Paul's  position  on  the  Sabbath  question,  as 
the  Sabbath  question  is  here  ]plainly  involved.  Now, 
if  Paul  held  the  doctrine,  that  the  Sabbath  law  was 
abolished,  and  taght  it  elsewhere,  as  some  claim,  why 
did  he  miss  such  a  perfect  opportunity  for  teaching 
it  here?  Can  there  be  any  stronger  inference  that  he 
held  no  such  doctrine  I 

The  Jewish  Sabbath  was  a  standing  question  of 
dispute  between  the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  Chris- 
tians, and  the  dispute  would  naturally  resolve  itself 
into  a  dispute  over  the  meaning  of  the  Sabbath  law : 
the  Jews  holding,  as  Adventists  do  to-day,  that  it 
made  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  holy  above  other 
days  of  the  week,  as  the  only  true  Sabbath;  the 
Gentiles  holding,  as  the  great  majority  of  Christians 
do  to-day,  that  the  Sabbath  of  the  law  was  an  institu- 
tion, not  a  fixed  unchangeable  day  of  the  week^  and 


348  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

therefore  every  day  of  the  week  was  alike  holy  in 
itself;  and  thus  it  was,  that  ^'one  man  esteemeth  one 
day  above  another;  and  another  esteemeth  every 
day  alike.''  Now,  if  the  dispute  was  over  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Sabbath  law,  as  it  evidently  was,  then 
if:  could  not  have  been  over  the  abolition  of  the  Sab- 
bath laAV,  and  hence  the  passage  furnishes  no  argu- 
ment that  the  Sabbath  law  was  abolished. 

The  Christian  Sabbath  was  not  based  on  the  the- 
ory that  one  day  was  above  another  as  holier  in  it- 
self, but  on  the  theory  that  every  day  was  alike  holy 
in  itself.  Its  fixed  day  element  was  purely  and 
simply  a  memorial  of  the  Resurrection  of  Christ, 
and  there  could  be  no  dispute  in  regard  to  what  day 
of  the  week  was  most  suitable  as  a  memorial  of  that 
event.  There  was  thus  no  ground  of  dispute  between 
the  Jewish  and  the  Gentile  Christians  in  regard  to 
the  Lord's  day,  which  both  observed  in  commemora- 
tion of  the  Eesurrection. 

But  the  Jewish  Christians  observed  also  the  whole 
Jewish  ceremonial  law,  including  the  Jewish  Sab- 
bath, because  they  thought  that  the  Christian  reli- 
gion was  but  a  new  phase  of  the  Jewish  religion,  and 
still  under  the  Jewish  law.  They  insisted,  therefore, 
that  the  Gentile  Christians  should  also  keep  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  and  the  rest  of  the  ceremonial  law. 
But  the  Gentile  Christians  thought  that  keeping  one 
day  satisfied  the  demands  of  the  Sabbath  law,  and 
that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  a  needless  burden. 
Hence  the  dispute  would  inevitably  resolve  into  the 
doctrinal  issue  regarding  the  seventh  day  of  the 
vv^eek  as  holier  in  itself  than  other  days,  which  the 
Jewish  Christians  held;  and  Paul  settled  the  ques- 


THE  DECALOGUE  349 

tion  decidedly  against  the  doctrine,  yet  with  due 
respect  to  the  honest  convictions  of  others  as  a  rule 
for  their  own  conduct.  In  the  preceding  verse  he 
said,  ^^Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's 
servant?  to  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth.'' 

In  the  second  passage  (Col.  2  :  16)  Paul's  words, 
**Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  *  *  *  in  re- 
spect of  the  Sabbath  days,''  is  in  harmony  with  tlie 
preceding  and  also  in  harmony  with  the  view  that 
the  Sabbath  law  does  not  fix  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath, and  implies  only  that  Paul  held  this  view  of 
the  Sabbath  law.  That  he  had  in  mind  only  the  Jew- 
ish Sabbath,  is  evident  in  the  fact  that  the  word 
*^ Sabbath"  always  referred  to  the  Jewish  Sabbath; 
for,  to  avoid  confusion,  the  Christian  Sabbath  was 
always  called  the  Lord's  day.  Hence  Paul's  words 
do  not  imply  that  the  Sabbath  law  was  abolished, 
but  only  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished. 
The  word  ^^ therefore"  refers  bacK  to  the  14th  verse, 
where  Paul  said  that  the  handwriting  of  ordinances 
was  blotted  out  end  nailed  to  the  cross,  thus  plainly 
including  the  Jewish  Sabbath  with  the  ordinances 
that  were  blotted  out.  On  pages  266-268  we  showed 
that  Paul  referred  to  the  Jewish  weekly  Sabbaths, 
and  not  to  the  annual  Sabbaths. 

In  the  third  passage  before  us  (Gal.  4  :  10,11), 
the  observance  of  ^'days"  (Jewish  weekly  Sabbaths) 
**and  months"  (new  moons),  ^^and  times"  (yearly 
feasts),  ^^and  years"  (Sabbatical  years)  belonged  to 
the  Jewish  ritual,  or  handwriting  of  ordinances, 
which  Paul  said  was  blotted  out.  This  is  the  same 
numeration,  reversely — omitting  the  Sabbatical 
years — as  given  in  Col.  2  :  16.   In  observing  them, 


350  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

the  Galatians  were  attacHng  a  certain  amount  of 
saving  merit  to  tliem, — thinking  thns  to  be  justified 
by  the  law, — ^which  was  directly  contrary  to  Paul's 
teaching.  Paul  told  them,  in  the  next  chapter  (Gal. 
5:4),  ^^  Christ  is  become  of  no  effect  unto  you,  who- 
soever of  you  are  justified  by  the  law;  ye  are  fallen 
from  grace.''  Hence  he  said,  ^^I  am  afraid  of  you, 
lest  I  have  bestowed  upon  you  labor  in  vain." 

So  far  as  the  weekly  Sababth  is  here  involved, 
Paul  had  in  mind  only  the  Jewish  Sabbath;  for  he 
would  not  thus  have  classified  the  Christian  Sabbath 
with  the  other  Jewish  holy  days,  and  it  would  not  be 
just  to  interpret  Paul's  words  to  include  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath  if  he  did  not  have  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath in  mind  when  he  wrote  them.  Now,  if  Paul 
had  in  mind  only  the  Jewish  Sabbath,  his  words 
cannot  be  taken  to  imply  that  the  Sabbath  law  was 
abolished,  unless  it  can  first  be  proven  that  abol- 
ishing the  Jewish  Sabbath  is  equivalent  to  abolish- 
ing the  Sabbath  law ;  but  since  the  Sabbath  law  does 
not  fix  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  then  abolishing  the 
Jewish  Sabbath  does  not  affect  the  Sabbath  law. 

Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper  are  Christian 
ordinances,  but  no  one  would  think  of  including 
them  in  the  handwriting  of  ordinances,  which  Paul 
said  was  blotted  out  and  nailed  to  the  cross.  The 
Christian  Sabbath  is  just  as  much  of  a  Christian 
ordinance,  and  Paul  thought  no  more  of  including  it 
with  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law  than  he  did  baptism 
and  the  Lord's  Supper. 

Paul  could  have  found  no  fault  with  the  Gentiles 
for  keeping  the  Christian  Sabbath  (in  its  fixed  day 
sense)  purely  and  simply  in  commemoration  of  the 


THE  DECALOGUE  351" 

Resurrection  of  Christ,  and  (in  its  every  seventh' 
day  sense)  in  commemoration  of  Creation  as  the 
proportion  of  time  commanded  by  the  Sabbath  law 
to  set  apart  for  rest,  worship,  and  spiritual  growth ; 
for  there  would  have  been  nothing  in  this  observance 
contrary  to  Paul's  teaching.  Paul  censured  them 
only  for  putting  their  faith  in  the  law,  instead  of  in 
the  sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  whole  burden  of  PauPs  letter  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  and  also  a  large  part  of  that  to  the  Eomans, 
was  the  great  doctrine  of  ^*  Justification  by  Faith" 
in  Jesus  Christ.  He  says,  **  Knowing  that  a  man  is 
not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by  the 
faith  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  we  have  believed  in  Jesus 
Christ,  that  we  might  be  justified  by  the  faith  of 
Christ,  and  not  by  the  works  of  the  law :  for  by  the 
works  of  the  law  shall  no  flesh  be  justified.'* — Gal. 
2  :  16.  ^^  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the  curse 
of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse  for  us. ' ' — Gal.  3  :  13. 
**  Christ  is  become  of  no  effect  unto  you,  whosoever 
of  you  are  justified  by  the  law:  ye  are  fallen  from 
grace." — Gal.  5  :  4.  *^ Christ  is  the  end  of  the  law 
for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth." — 
Eom.  10  :  4.  '  ^  There  is  therefore  now  no  condemna- 
tion to  them  which  are  in  Christ  Jesus." — Rom. 
|8  :  1.  Read  also  Rom.  3  :  19-31  and  Galatians,  3rd 
chapter. 

But  does  the  doctrine  of  **  Justification  by  Faith" 
in  Jesus  Christ  abolish  the  law?  Paul  says,  that  it 
establishes  the  law;  for  in  Rom.  3  :  31  he  says,  *^Do 
we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith?  God  for- 
bid: yea,  we  establish  the  law." 

**The  law  is  not  made  for  a  righteous  man,  but 


t^t 


52  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 


for  the  lawless  and  disobedient.'^ — 1  Tim.  1  :  9. 
*  ^  But  if  ye  be  led  of  the  Spirit,  ye  are  not  nnder  the 
law;''  for,  ^'The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy, 
peace,  long  suffering,  gentleness,  goodness,  faith, 
meekness,  temperance:  against  such  there  is  no 
law.''— Gal.  5  :  18,22,23.  ^^Ye  are  not  under  the 
law,  but  under  grace." — Rom.  6  :  14.  ^'Ye  also  are 
become  dead  to  the  law.  *  *  *  we  are  delivered 
from  the  law." — Rom.  7  :  4,6. 

These  texts  also,  when  fairly  interpreted,  tend 
rather  to  establish  than  to  make  void  the  law.  The 
fact  that  the  law  was  not  made  for  a  righteous  man, 
but  only  for  the  lawless  and  disobedience,  evidently 
could  not  abolish  the  law  any  more  than  it  could  pre- 
vent the  law  when  first  made.  *  ^  If  ye  be  in  the  Spir- 
it" is  the  condition  of  deliverance  from  the  law,  for 
the  fruits  of  the  spirit  are  in  perfect  harmony  with 
the  law;  and  hence,  so  long  as  Christians  are  led  of 
the  Spirit,  they  cannot  disobey  the  law.  But  the 
condition  of  deliverance  necessarily  involves  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  same  law  from  which  the  condition 
delivers ;  for  the  condition  can  only  continue  by  rea- 
son of  the  continuance  of  the  law. 

While  Christians  are  thus  delivered  from  the  law, 
they  ' '  are  not  under  the  law,  but  under  grace ; ' '  but 
if  the  law  were  abolished,  grace  would  be  abolished 
also,  for  grace  exists  only  because  of  the  law,  and 
the  same  law  too  from  which  the  deliverance  is  ef- 
fected. Christians  are  not  at  liberty  to  abuse  their 
liberty;  for  Paul  says,  ^^Ye  have  been  called  unto 
liberty;  only  use  not  liberty  for  an  occasion  to  the 
flesh"  (Gal.  5  :  13).  Christians  *^are  become  dead 
to  the  law"  only  in  the  sense  that  the  law  is  practi- 


THE  DECALOGUE  ^  353 

cally  a  dead  letter  to  tbose  wlio  keep  it,  not  from 
compulsion,  but  from  inclination. 

^'Wlien  the  Gentiles,  wliicli  have  not  the  law,  do 
by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  lav/,  these,  hav- 
ing not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves:  which 
show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts. ' ' — 
Eom.  2  :  14,15.  Here  Paul  recognized  the  fact  that 
the  law  v/as  written  in  the  hearts  of  those  Gentiles 
who  do  by  nature  the  things  contained  in  the  law, 
though  they  had  not  the  law  in  its  outwardly  writ- 
ten form.  Notice  that  Paul  recognized  that  the  law 
written  in  their  hearts  was  the  same  law  as  the  out- 
wardly written  law  to  which  he  evidently  referred. 

This  shows  that  the  Decalogue,  or  Ten  Command- 
ments, to  which  Paul  evidently  referred  in  particu- 
lar, was  but  an  outward  expression  of  the  law  of  God 
written  (though  often  almost  erased  by  neglect)  in 
the  hearts  of  the  human  race. 

In  referring  to  God's  promise  to  Abraham  con- 
cerning Christ  and  the  inheritance,  Paul  said,  *  ^  The 
law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after, 
cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of 
none  etfect." — Gal.  3  :  17.  Evidently,  the  word 
^'law''  is  here  used,  not  in  a  law-beginning  sense,  but 
in  a  law-giving  sense ;  for  Abraham  kept  God 's  com- 
mandments and  laws  (Gen.  26  :  5).  Hence  God's 
law,  given  to  the  Israelites  at  Sinai  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years  after  Abraham,  was  not  the  begin- 
ning of  God's  law,  but  only  an  after  expression  of  it 
in  the  form  of  a  definite  code  of  laws  known  as  the 
Ten  Commandments,  or  Decalogue.  There  is  no  ar- 
gument here  that  the  Decalogue  was  not  the  same 
law  in  substance  as  that  which  existed  at  the  time 


354  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

of  Abraham,  both  being  the  law  of  God,  they  must 
necessarily  consist  of  the  same  moral  principles, 
and  therefore  in  reality  be  one  and  the  same  law. 

God  promised  Abraham  that  in  his  seed  (Christ) 
all  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed  (Gen. 
22  :  18).  This  promise  extended  to  all  the  world. 
But  when  He  gave  the  law  to  the  Israelites,  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years  after,  He  promised  that  if  they 
would  obey  His  law.  He  would  make  them  a  peculiar 
treasure  unto  Himself,  above  all  people  (Ex.  19  :  5). 
This  promise  extended  only  to  the  Israelites.  Paul 's 
argument  was,  that  this  last  promise  (represented 
by  the  Law),  which  included  only  Jews,  could  not 
disannul  the  former  promise  made  to  Abraham, 
which  included  all  the  world ;  that  the  promise  made 
first  reached  beyond  the  promise  nlade  last,  for  God 
would  not  make  any  promise  that  disannulled  a 
former  promise;  and  therefore,  through  faith  in 
Christ,  all,  without  distinction,  come  under  the  prom- 
ise to  Abraham. 

The  law  was  given  as  the  condition  of  God's  prom- 
ise to  the  Israelites,  and  hence  it  stood,  in  a  sense, 
for  the  promise ;  and  that  Paul  used  it  in  this  sense 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that  there  was  nothing  in  the 
nature  of  the  law  itself  that  could  possibly  conflict 
with  God's  promise  to  Abraham.  But  the  promise 
to  the  Israelites  could  be  and  was  practically  con- 
strued by  the  Jews  as  disannulling  the  promise  to 
Abraham. 

'  In  Ezek.  20  :  11,  God  said,  **I  gave  them  my  stat- 
utes." God  could  not  have  given  something  that  had 
no  previous  existence.  A  thing  must  first  he  before 
it  can  be  given.    Hence  every  precept  of  the  Deca- 


THE  DECALOGUE  355 

t 

logue,  in  so  far  as  it  involved  a  distinct  and  separate 
moral  principle,  had  a  distinct  and  separate  exist- 
ence as  one  of  God's  statutes  before  it  was  given  on 
Sinai  by  the  voice  of  God,  and  written  on  tables  of 
stone. 

A  moral  precept  is  made  and  given  existence  by 
the  conditions  that  make  it  a  moral  necessity.  Some 
of  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue,  in  their  very  na- 
ture, existed  before  the  world  was  created,  and  hence 
binding  on  the  angels.  Others  did  not  exist  till  the 
conditions  involved  in  human  interrelationship  gave 
them  existence.  If  these  conditions  existed,  as  they 
did,  from  the  beginning  of  the  human  race,  then  the 
moral  precepts  growing  out  of  these  conditions  nec- 
essarily existed  also  from  the  beginning  of  the  hu- 
man race.  Now,  if  the  Decalogue  existed — though 
not  in  an  outwardly  written  form — before  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Jewish  dispensation,  it  could  not  be  af- 
fected by  the  ending  of  the  Jewish  dispensation. 

'  Another  line  of  argument  used  in  attempting  to 
prove  that  the  Decalogue  was  abolished  is  drawn 
from  the  two  covenants.  Jeremiah  foretold  (Jer. 
31  :  31-34)  that  the  Lord  would  make  a  new  cove- 
nant ;  and  the  new  covenant  necessarily  abolished  the 
old  (Heb.  8  :  6-13;  2  Cor.  3  :  3-18).  In  Deut.  4  :  13; 
9  :  11 ;  Ex.  34  :  28,  the  Decalogue  is  called  the  cove- 
nant ;  and  this  fact  is  supposed  to  identify  it  with  the 
old  covenant  that  was  abolished. 

A  covenant  is  an  agreement,  or  contract,  between 
parties.  The  Decalogue,  in  itself,  is  not  of  the  na- 
ture of  an  agreement  between  God  and  the  Israelites, 
but  it  does  contain  the  terms  of  that  agreement. 


356  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

I 

The  writing  which  contains  the  terms  of  an  agree- 
ment is  called  the  contract  or  covenant ;  and  in  this 
sense  only,  can  the  Decalogue  be  called  the  covenant 
which  God  made  with  the  Israelites  at  Sinai. 

*^And  Moses  took  the  blood,  and  sprinkled  it  on 
the  people  and  said,  Behold  the  blood  of  the  cove- 
nant, which  the  Lord  hath  made  with  you  concern- 
ing all  these  words.'' — ^Ex.  24  :  8.  Then  the  cove- 
nant was  not  ^'all  these  words,''  but  the  agreement 
concerning  them.  *^And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses, 
Write  these  words :  for  after  the  tenor  of  these  words 
I  have  made  a  covenant  with  thee  and  with  Israel 
.  .  And  he  wrote  upon  the  tables  the  words  of 
the  covenant,  the  ten  commandments." — Ex. 
34  :  27,28.  Here  we  see  that  the  Ten  Command- 
ments are  called  *Hhe  words  of  the  covenant,''  not 
because  that  in  themselves  they  constituted  the  cove- 
nant, but  because  ^' after  the  tenor  of  these  words" 
God  made  the  covenant ;  and  this  furnishes  a  key  to 
the  interpretation  of  those  other  passages  in  which 
the  Decalogue  is  called  the  covenant. 

What  then  was  the  covenant,  or  agreement,  that 
God  made  with  Israel  at  Sinai?  ^'Now  therefore  if 
ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  my  covenant, 
then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  treasure  unto  me  above 
all  people"  (Ex.  19  :  5).  Here  we  have  the  condi- 
tion of  the  covenant, — ^'If  ye  will  obey  my  voice,"' — 
and  also  the  promise  that  constituted  God's  side  of 
the  covenant.  It  only  remains  for  Israel  to  accept 
the  condition  and  bind  themselves  by  a  promise  to 
obey  God's  voice.  *^And  all  the  people  answered 
together  and  said.  All  that  the  Lord  hath  spoken  we 
will  do.  And  Moses  returned  the  words  of  the  peo- 
ple unto  the  Lord"  (verse  8). 


THE  DECALOGUE  357 

This  is  the  preliminary  stage  of  the  covenant. 
They  have  promised  to  obey  God's  voice;  but  God 
had  not  yet  uttered  His  voice  in  the  Ten  Command- 
ments :  so  that  the  definite  conditions  of  the  covenant 
liave  not  yet  been  made  known  to  them ;  and  the  cove- 
nant is  not  completed  in  the  strictest  sense  till  the 
conditions  are  clearly  stated  in  detail. 

God  then  spake  the  Ten  Commandments  with  His 
own  voice  in  the  hearing  of  all  the  people  (Ex.  20  : 1 ; 
Deut.  4  :  33;  5  :  22).  Then  Moses  went  up  into  the 
mount  and  God  gave  him  judgments  relating  to  every 
detail  of  the  Ten  Commandments  (Exodus  21-23). 
*^And  Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all  the  words 
of  the  Lord,  and  all  the  judgments ;  and  all  the  peo- 
ple answered  with  one  voice,  and  said,  All  the  words 
v\hich  the  Lord  hath  said  we  will  do''  (Ex.  24  :  3). 
Moses  then  wrote  all  the  words  of  the  Lord  in  a  book, 
built  an  altar,  offered  burnt  offerings  and  sacrificed 
peace  offerings  of  oxen  unto  the  Lord,  sprinkled  the 
altar  with  blood,  and  took  the  book  of  the  covenant 
and  read  it  to  all  the  people.  Again  they  said,  ^^All 
that  the  Lord  hath  said  will  we  do,  and  be  obedient. ' ' 
.  .  .  And  Moses  took  the  blood,  and  sprinkled  it 
on  the  people,  and  said:  ^^ Behold  the  blood  of  the 
covenant,  which  the  Lord  hath  made  with  you  con- 
cerning all  these  words"  (Ex.  24  :  4-8).  Thus  the 
covenant  was  formally  ratified  by  the  people  through 
Moses  as  their  mediator. 

It  is  evident  then,  that  the  covenant,  in  the  pri- 
mary sense,  was  the  agreement  that  God  made  with 
the  Israelites,  and  that  the  Ten  Commandments  was 
what  God  required  and  what  the  Israelites  promised 
to  obey  as  the  condition  of  the  covenant^  and  when 


358  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

the  Decalogue  is  spoken  of  as  the  covenant,  it  is  only 
in  the  sense  that  it  is  the  condition  of  the  covenant. 

^'Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I 
will  make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel, 
and  with  the  house  of  Judah:  Not  according  to  the 
covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  in  the  day 
that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt;  which  my  covenant  they  brake, 
although  I  was  an  husband  unto  them,  saith  the 
Lord. ' '— Jer.  31  :  31,32. 

That  it  was  the  agreement,  or  contract,  not  the 
Ten  Commandments,  that  is  here  referred  to  as  **the 
covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers,''  is  clearly 
shown;  first.  In  the  fact  that  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, merely  as  a  code  of  laws,  did  not  make  God 
a  husband  to  the  Israelites,  but  His  contract  with 
them,  based  on  the  condition  that  they  observe  those 
laws,  did;  second.  It  was  only  by  the  Israelites 
breaking  the  condition  of  the  covenant,  that  the  cove- 
nant could  be  abolished,  for  God's  promise  could  not 
fail.  Hence,  the  covenant  was  abolished  because  of 
the  disobedience  of  the  Israelites. 

Now,  if  the  covenant  that  was  abolished  was 
simply  the  Ten  Commandments,  then  we  have  the 
law  of  God  abolished  by  the  disobedience  of  the  Is- 
raelites ;  and  hence  the  law  of  God  did  not  depend  on 
the  authority  of  God,  but  on  the  obedience  of  the 
Israelites.  This  is  the  position  that  those  must  take, 
who  claim  that  the  covenant  that  was  abolished  was 
the  Ten  Commandments. 

Again,  *^The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect." — Ps. 
19  :  7-11;  111  :  7,8;  119  :  96;  James  1  :  25;  2  :  8-12. 


THE  DECALOGUE  359 

But  Paul  says,  that  the  first  covenant  was  not  fault- 
less (Ileb.  8  :  7).  Now,  since  the  Law  is  perfect, 
and  this  covenant  not  perfect,  they  cannot  be  identi- 
cal. If  the  first  covenant  were  perfect,  it  could  not 
be  improved ;  but  Paul  says  that  the  new  covenant  is 
*^ established  on  better  promises''  (Heb.  8:6),  and 
hence  is  an  improvement  on  the  old. 

The  old  covenant  was  faulty  in  that  it  was  not 
adapted  to  the  helpless  condition  of  fallen  man;  but 
it  served  its  purpose  in  showing  man  his  helpless 
condition,  and  causing  him  to  look  forward  to  the 
promised  deliverance  foreshadowed  in  the  cere- 
monial law,  and  thus  prepared  the  way  for  the  com- 
ing of  Christ  and  the  establishment  of  the  new  cove- 
nant. All  of  which  goes  to  prove  that  the  old  cove- 
nant, which  was  abolished,  was  not  the  law  itself, 
but  simply  a  contract  between  God  and  His  people, 
the  conditions  of  which  was  inevitably  destined  to  be 
broken  in  the  very  inability  of  the  people  to  keep  it. 

*^But  this  shall  be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make 
with  the  house  of  Israel ;  After  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and 
write  it  in  their  hearts;  and  will  be  their  God,  and 
they  shall  be  my  people.'' — Jer.  31  :  33.  Writing 
the  law  ^4n  their  hearts"  is  certainly  quite  the  oppo- 
site of  abolishing  it.  Neither  is  there  any  warrant 
here  for  assuming  that  it  was  a  different  law  from 
that  written  on  tables  of  stone.  Jeremiah  could  only 
have  had  in  mind  the  one  code  of  laws  known  to  him 
as  the  law  of  God :  that  code  of  laws  spoken  by  the 
voice  of  God  and  written  by  the  finger  of  God. 

Neither  are  we  to  suppose,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
the  law  of  God  consisted  of  certain  set  unchangeable 


360  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

words  in  a  set  uncliangeable  order,  and  that  it  would 
cease  to  be  tlie  same  law  if  it  was  put  in  different 
words  without  changing  the  meaning.  The  sub- 
stance of  the  law  is  the  moral  precepts  contained 
in  it,  and  which  do  not  depend  on  the  exact  wording. 
The  two  copies  of  the  law  (Ex.  20  :  3-17  and  Deut. 
5  :  7-21)  are  worded  quite  differently,  yet  they  are 
both  the  same  law:  the  first  as  spoken  by  God,  and 
the  second  as  written  by  Him  on  tables  of  stone. — As 
shown  in  Chapter  IX. 

The  law  of  God,  as  written  on  the  hearts  of  His 
people,  is  evidently  not  in  any  set  words,  but  in  tlie 
sense.  However,  when  it  becomes  necessary  to  put 
it  in  words  for  instruction,  we  cannot  improve  on  the 
wording  in  which  God  himself  has  put  it. 

No  one  can  fail  to  recognize  that  the  law  written 
^'in  their  hearts,''  in  Jeremiah's  prophecy,  was 
meant  to  contrast  the  law  written  *^in  tables  of 
stone,"  and  hence  the  same  law.  It  was  only  from 
this  prophecy  that  Paul  could  have  drawn  the  ex- 
pression, ^^Not  in  tables  of  stone,  but  in  fleshy 
tables  of  the  heart"  (2  Cor.  3  :  3).  Paul  here  evi- 
dently means  to  draw  a  contrast,  not  between  two 
laws,  but  between  the  receptacles  in  which  the  same 
law  was  written. 

Again,  he  says,  in  verse  6,  *'Who  also  hath  made 
us  able  ministers  of  the  New  Testament  (covenant), 
not  of  the  letter,  but  of  the  spirit ;  for  the  letter  Idll- 
eth,  but  the  spirit  givetli  life."  Now,  if  Paul  here 
meant  the  letter  of  one  law  and  the  spirit  of  another, 
he  would  certainly  have  said  so.  The  unmistakable 
teaching  is,  that  the  spirit  of  the  law  is  the  basis  of 
the  new  covenant  just  as  the  letter  of  the  law  was  the 


THE  DECiiLOGUE  361 

basis  of  the  old,  and  that  in  both  cases  it  was  the 
same  law.  Paul  could  only  have  referred  to  the  law 
when  he  said,  ' '  The  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giv- 
etli  life, ' '  and  only  to  the  same  law  in  both  cases. 

In  the  next  two  verses  he  says,  *^But  if  the  min- 
istration of  death  (the  letter  that  killeth),  written 
and  engraven  in  stone,  was  glorious  .  .  .  which 
glory  was  to  be  done  away.  How  shall  not  the  min- 
istration of  the  spirit  be  rather  glorious  1 ' '  Paul  is 
here  plainly  contrasting  the  glory  of  the  ministra- 
tion of  the  letter  of  the  law  with  the  glory  of  the  min- 
istration of  the  spirit  of  the  law,  and  states,  incident- 
ally, that  the  glory  of  the  former  was  to  be  done 
away  (by  reason  of  the  glory  that  excelleth,  as 
shown  in  verse  10) :  a  truth  that  no  one  will  deny. 
Now  note  particularly  that  Paul  does  not  say,  nor 
even  imply,  that  the  law  written  and  engraven  on 
stones  was  to  be  done  away,  but  that  the  glory  of  the 
ministration  of  the  letter  of  that  law  was  to  be  done 
away. 

Death  is  passed  on  all  men  in  that  all  have  sinned 
(Rom.  5  :  12) ;  for  ^Hlie  wages  of  sin  is  death''  (Rom. 
6  :  23)  and  ^^sin  is  the  transgression  of  the  law" 
(1  John  3:4):  hence  the  ministration  of  the  letter 
of  the  law,  which  was  ^'written  and  engraven  in 
stones,''  became  the  ministration  of  death;  for 
death  is  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and  the  letter  of  the 
law,  therefore,  necessarily  passed  the  death  sentence 
on  all  who  had  disobeyed  the  law. 

But  Jesus  tasted  death  for  every  man  (Heb.  2:9); 
He  ^^gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all"  (1  Tim.  2:6); 
*^If  one  died  for  all,  then  were  all  dead"  (2  Cor. 
5  :  14) ;  ^  *  The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of 


362       .  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

US  alP'  (Isa.  53  :  6) ;  '^Christ  died  for  our  sins'' 
(1  Cor.  15  :  3) ;  thus  the  ministration  of  the  letter  of 
the  law,  which  killeth,  was  done  away,  and  the  minis- 
tration of  the  spirit,  which  giveth  life,  was  estab- 
lished, not  by  abolishing  the  law,  but  by  Jesus  bear- 
ing ^^our  sins  in  his  own  body"  and  dying  in  our 
stead,  thus  sparing  us  and  at  the  same  time  vindi- 
cating the  authority  of  the  law. 

That  Christ  vindicated  the  authority  of  the  law  in 
his  death  is  the  best  possible  proof  of  the  existence 
of  the  law,  and  certainly  the  law  could  not  be  abol- 
ished in  the  vindication  of  it.  Then  it  was  not  the 
law,  but  the  ministration  of  the  law,  that  was 
changed. 

Under  the  new  ministration,  justification  is  not 
by  the  law  but  by  faith  in  Jesus  (Gal.  2  :  16).  ^^Do 
we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith?  God 
forbid:  yea,  we  establish  the  law"  (Rom.  3  :  31). 

The  law  still  remained  as  the  standard  by  which 
sin  is  shown  (Rom.  3  :  20 ;  7  :  7 ;  1  John  3:4;  James 
2  :  8-12;  Ps.  19  :  7-11),  also,  to  reprove  the  wicked, 
to  approve  the  righteous,  to  restrain  and  constrain, 
and  to  be  a  rule  of  conduct  to  all.  The  law  is  estab- 
lished by  being  written  in  the  hearts  of  God's  people, 
whereby  they  are  brought  into  harmony  with  the  law 
and  love  its  precepts.  *  ^  True  Christians  do  not  feel 
the  law  as  a  burden,  but  the  best  need  it  as  a  guide. ' ' 
— Waffle.  *^We  are  delivered  from  the  law,  that 
being  dead  wherein  we  were  held;  that  we  should 
serve  in  newness  of  spirit,  and  not  in  the  oldness  of 
the  letter"  (Rom.  7  :  6).  ^* Wherefore  the  law  is 
holy,  and  the  commandment  holy,  and  just,  and 
good"  (verse  12) :  We  cannot  conclude  that  Chris- 


THE  DECALOGUE  363 

tians  are  delivered  from  that  wliicli  is  lioly,  just, 
and  good,  but  that  they  are  delivered  from  the  bond- 
age and  curse  of  the  law,  whereby  they  were  held, 
thus  enabling  them  to  ^^  serve  in  newness  of  spirit, 
and  not  in  the  oldness  of  the  letter." 

Again,  the  law  is  established  by  its  full  vindica- 
tion in  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ ;  for  nothing  could 
more  completely  establish  the  law  than  the  fact  that 
God's  own  Son  was  slain  to  vindicate  its  authority. 
The  new  ministration  of  the  law  rests  on  the  fact 
that  because  of  the  perfect  vindication  of  the  author- 
ity of  the  law  by  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ,  God  can 
now  be  just  and  yet  the  justifier  of  him  that  believ- 
eth  in  Jesus  Christ  (Rom.  3  :  26).  The  Resurrec- 
tion testified  that  the  death  of  Jesus  Christ  fully 
vindicated  the  authority  of  the  law. 

Again,  the  law  is  established,  as  Paul  said,  by 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ ;  for  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is  a 
recognition  of  His  death  as  the  vindication  of  the 
law,  and  thus  a  recognition  of  the  law  thus  vindi- 
cated. 

The  death  of  Jesus  Christ  is,  in  its  nature,  a  stand- 
ing vindication  of  the  law :  hence  its  redeeming  pow- 
er can  never  be  exhausted,  nor  even  diminished. 
^^The  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  cleanseth  from  all  sin" 
(1  John  1:7);  ^^He  will  save  to  the  uttermost  all 
that  come  unto  him"  (Heb.  7  :  25) :  these  are  a 
guarantee,  both  of  its  all  sufficiency,  and  its  ever 
sufficiency.  The  permanency  of  the  vindication  is 
also  a  guarantee  of  the  permanence  of  the  law  there- 
by vindicated. 

What  law  was  it  that  Jesus  Christ  vindicated  by 


364  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

His  death?  Certainly  the  then  recognized  law  of 
God,  which  was  broken  by  the  Jews,  and  was  the 
Ten  Commandments  in  particular,  whatever  else 
might  have  been  included,  and  that  law  certainly 
could  not  have  been  abolished  in  its  vindication. 

Some  seem  to  think  it  is  necessary  to  abolish 
everything  that  related  to  the  Jews,  and  therefore 
reject  the  Ten  Commandments  because  they  were 
given  to  the  Jews.  Just  as  well  reject  Christ  be- 
cause he  was  a  Jew  and  reject  the  teaching  of  the 
apostles  because  they  were  Jews. 

^^  Behold  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will 
make  a  new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and 
with  the  house  of  Judah''  (Jer.  33  :  31), — then  the 
new  covenant,  as  well  as  the  old,  was  made  with  the 
Jews.  Even  the  Gospel  itself  was  commanded  to  be 
preached  first  to  the  Jews  (Acts  3  :  26;  13  :  46; 
Rom.  1  :  16).  Paul,  in  speaking  of  the  Jews,  said, 
'^Who  are  Israelites;  to  whom  pertaineth  the  adop- 
tion, and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giv- 
ing of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  prom- 
ises; Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  as  con- 
cerning the  flesh  Christ  came"  (Rom.  9  :  4,5). 
^^What  advantage  then  hath  the  Jew!  Much  every 
way :  chiefly  because  that  unto  them  were  committed 
the  oracles  of  God"  (Rom.  3  :  1,2). 

Oral  means  spoken:  and  the  oracles  of  God  were 
the  Ten  Commandments  spoken  by  God.  If  we  re- 
ject the  Ten  Commandments  because  they  were 
given  to  the  Jews,  then,  to  be  consistent,  we  should 
reject  the  new  covenant  because  it  was  made  with 
the  Jews,  reject  Christ  because  he  was  a  Jew,  and 


THE  DECAIjOGUE  365 

reject  the  teachings  of  the  apostles  because  they 
were  Jews. 

Some  object  to  the  terms  ^^ moral  law'*  and  ^^cere- 
monial law/'  because  the  terms  are  not  used  in  the 
Bible.  But  all  must  admit  that  some  of  the  precepts 
of  the  law  were  moral  in  their  nature  and  some  cere- 
monial, and  therefore  the  law  naturally  divided  it- 
self into  moral  precepts  and  ceremonial  precepts; 
and  hence  it  is  perfectly  legitimate  to  speak  of  the 
moral  part  of  the  law  as  the  moral  law,  and  of  the 
ceremonial  part  as  the  ceremonial  law. 

The  Decalogue  was  the  only  part  of  the  law  that 
was  spoken  by  the  voice  of  God  and  written  by  the 
finger  of  God;  which  fact  necessarily  gave  it  the 
prominent  place  in  the  law.  AVhile  there  are  moral 
precepts  in  the  law  outside  of  the  Decalogue,  yet  the 
Decalogue  is  practically  a  summary  of  the  moral 
law,  and  is,  in  this  sense,  referred  to  as  the  moral 
law. 

Since  no  distinguishing  terms  are  used  in  the 
Bible  to  distinguish  between  the  moral  and  the  cere- 
monial parts  of  the  law,  it  necessarily  follows  that 
the  word  ^^law"  refers  sometimes  to  the  moral  part 
of  the  law,  and  sometimes  to  the  ceremonial  part, 
and  sometimes  to  the  law  as  a  whole;  and  we  can 
judge  only  from  the  connection  in  which  it  is  used. 
We  would  be  obliged  to  use  the  word  *^law''  in  the 
same  way  to-day  if  we  did  not  use  the  terms  *^ moral'' 
and  ** ceremonial,"  or  some  other  distinguishing 
terms. 

The  ceremonial  part  of  the  Jewish  law  consisted 
of  types  pointing  to  Christ,  and  were  necessarily 


366  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

abolished  by  having  their  typical  meaning  fulfilled, 
and  done  away,  in  Christ.  There  is  no  dispute  on 
this  point.  The  whole  dispute  is  in  regard  to  the 
Decalogue. 

Christ  said, ' '  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy 
the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy, 
but  to  fulfil.  For  verily  I  say  unto  you,  till  heaven 
and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall  in  no  wise 
pass  from  the  law,  till  all  be  fulfilled''  (Matt. 
5  :  17,18).  All  will  agree  that  the  ceremonial  part 
of  the  law  was  fulfilled  and  done  away  in  Christ. 

In  the  next  verse  Christ  says,  *^  Whosoever  there- 
fore shall  break  one  of  these  least  commandments, 
and  shall  teach  men  so,  he  shall  be  called  the  least  in 
the  kingdom  of  heaven :  but  whosoever  shall  do  and 
teach  them,  the  same  shall  be  called  great  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven."  Christ  evidently  meant  these 
words  to  apply  to  all  future  time,  not  merely  from 
the  time  they  were  spoken  to  His  death. 

But  the  ceremonial  law  was  abolished  at  His  death, 
so  these  words  can  only  apply  now  to  the  moral  part 
of  the  law,  which  was  therefore  not  done  away ;  for 
the  words,  ^Hhese  commandments,''  can  only  refer 
to  the  law  about  which  He  was  talking ;  and  the  law 
about  which  He  was  talking  was  the  Mosaic  law,  as 
shown  by  its  being  coupled  with  the  prophets  in  the 
expression,  ^Hhe  law  and  the  prophets." 

Isa.  42  :  21  foretold  that  Christ  would  *^  magnify 
the  law,  and  make  it  honorable:"  magnifying  and 
honoring  are  quite  the  reverse  of  abolishing. 

In  answering  the  rich  young  ruler  (Luke  18  :  20), 
Jesus  said,  ^^Thou  knowest  the  commandments," 
then  he  numerated  five  of  the  precepts  of  the  Deca- 


THE  DECiiLOGUE  367 

logue,  thus  recognizing  the  Decalogue  as  the  stand- 
ard of  right  living.  Paul  also  (Rom.  13  :  9)  numer- 
ated five  of  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  as  the  rule 
of  conduct.  These  ^ve  precepts  in  each  case  are 
sufficient  fully  to  identify  the  Decalogue  as  the  code 
of  laws  referred  to. 

Because  all  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  were  not 
here  mentioned  does  not  argue  that  those  not  men- 
tioned were  abolished ;  for,  in  that  case,  the  first,  sec- 
ond and  third,  as  well  as  the  Sabbath  precept,  would 
be  abolished,  and  *^what  proves  too  much  proves 
nothing. '  * 

When  asked  which  was  the  great  commandment  in 
the  law,  Jesus  said,  ^^Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and 
with  all  thy  mind.  This  is  the  first  and  great  com- 
mandment. And  the  second  is  like  unto  it.  Thou 
shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these  two 
commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the  prophets." 
—Matt.  22  :  37-40. 

Here  again  the  word  ^4aw''  is  coupled  with  ^Hhe 
prophets,''  thus  identifying  it  with  the  Mosaic  law; 
and  in  the  very  heart  of  the  Mosaic  law  is  the  Deca- 
logue. The  Decalogue  therefore  hangs  on  the  two 
great  commandments  of  love  to  God  and  love  to 
man ;  and  there  is  certainly  no  argument  in  this  fact 
that  it  is  abolished. 

What  peculiarly  distinguishes  the  Decalogue  is  the 
fact  that  every  precept  in  it  is  the  natural,  neces- 
sary and  inevitable  outgrowth  of  the  two  great  com- 
mandments of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man;  and 
hence  it  would  be  impossible  to  abolish  the  Deca- 


368  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

0 

logue  without  abolishing  the  two  great  command- 
ments of  which  it  is  the  necessary  outgrowth. 

Those  who  teach  that  the  Decalogue  is  abolished 
have  much  to  say  about  God's  higher  law  and  God's 
eternal  law  of  righteousness,  but  they  fail  to  make 
it  very  clear  wherein  it  excludes  the  Decalogue  or 
in  what  sense  it  abolishes  the  Decalogue,  for  they 
recognize  all  of  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  ex- 
cept the  Sabbath  precept,  as  still  binding. 

By  God's  higher  law,  they  mean  the  two  great 
commandments  of  love  to  God  and  love  to  man. 
These  are  but  the  tvv^o  divisions  of  the  one  great  law 
of  love,  which  has  its  origin  in  the  nature  of  God,  for 
^^God  is  love"  (1  John  4:8);  ^'therefore  love  is  the 
fulfilling  of  the  law"  (Rom.  13  :  10). 

Love,  then,  is  the  foundation  principle  of  God's 
law.  Love  to  God  and  love  to  man  are  the  two  great 
divisions,  and  the  ten  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  are 
the  subdivisions :  the  first  four  belonging  to  the  first, 
and  the  last  six  belonging  to  the  second  great  divi- 
sion. Love  corresponds  to  the  root  of  the  tree.  Love 
to  God  and  love  to  man  are  the  two  main  branches : 
the  first  main  branch  having  four  sub-branches  (the 
first  four  precepts),  and  the  second  main  branch 
having  six  sub-branches  (the  last  six  precepts.)  All 
other  moral  precepts  are  lesser  sub-branches  grow- 
ing out  from  these  direct  sub-branches. 

Abolishing  the  Decalogue  and  immediately  restor- 
ing all  but  the  Sabbath  precept,  may  be  fittingly 
likened  to  cutting  off  all  the  branches  of  the  moral- 
law  tree,  and  immediately  grafting  all  but  the  Sab- 
bath branch  back  on  again.  But  why  not  graft  the 
Sabbath  precept  back  on  again,  as  well  as  the  rest, 


THE  DECALOGUE  369 

for  there  is  certainly  sufficient  reason  for  it?  In 
claiming  to  be  *^Lord  of  the  Sabbath, '^  Christ 
plainly  recognized  the  Sabbath  precept.  His  at- 
tempting to  reform  the  Sabbath  by  condemning  the 
prevalent  abuses  of  it,  was  certainly  not  with  a 
view  to  abolishing  it.  When  He  said,  *'The  Sabbath 
was  made  for  man, ' '  He  certainly  had  no  thought  of 
abolishing  the  precept  that  prescribed  that  which 
was  made  for  man.  ^^The  law  is  holy,  just,  and 
good''  (Rom.  7  :  12).  What  is  true  of  the  law  as  a 
whole  must  be  true  of  all  its  parts;  hence  the  Sab- 
bath law  is  holy,  just,  and  good.  And  certainly 
Jesus  did  not  abolish  that  which  was  holy,  just,  and 
good. 

Now,  since  there  is  good  and  sufficient  reason  for 
grafting  the  Sabbath  precept  back  on  again,  we  will 
assume  that  all  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  have 
been  cut  off  and  all  grafted  back  on  again.  What 
has  been  gained  by  the  transaction?  Has  the  Deca- 
logue been  abolished  in  any  real  or  practical  sense? 

Such  a  transaction  would  be  contrary  to  God's 
nature,  in  whom  there  '4s  no  variableness,  neither 
shadow  of  turning"  (Jas.  1  :  17) ;  and  of  whom  it 
was  said,  that  '^  whatsoever  God  doeth,  it  shall  be 
forever:  nothing  can  be  put  to  it,  nor  any  thing 
taken  from  it"  (Eccl.  3  :  14),  ''All  his  command- 
ments are  sure.  They  stand  fast  forever  and  ever." 
(Ps.  Ill  :  7,8.)  Again,  I  will  not  "alter  the  thing 
that  has  gone  out  of  my  lips"  (Ps.  89  :  34). 

It  will  be  manifest  to  every  one,  that  if  all  the  pre- 
cepts were  to  be  immediately  grafted  back  on  again, 
there  would  be  no  reason  for  cutting  any  of  them  off ; 
and  hence  the  only  possible  reason  that  can  be  given 


370  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

for  cutting  tliem  off  is  to  get  rid  of  tlie  Sabbath 
precept. 

To  abolish  the  Sabbath  precept,  it  is  manifestly 
necessary  to  abolish  the  whole  Decalogue;  for  all 
stand  on  equal  authority,  in  that  they  were  all  spoken 
by  the  voice  of  God  and  written  by  the  finger  of  God. 
Hence  the  necessity  of  cutting  off  all,  to  get  rid  of 
the  Sabbath  precept,  and  grafting  the  rest  back  on 
again. 

It  is  claimed  that  each  of  the  precepts  of  the  Deca- 
logue, except  the  Sabbath  precept,  is  practically  re- 
stated in  the  New  Testament  in  the  form  of  definite 
precepts,  and  that  there  is  no  definite  precept  in  the 
New  Testament  corresponding  to  the  Sabbath  pre- 
cept. Eestating  the  precepts  is  only  proof  that 
they  were  never  abolished  in  any  real  sense ;  and  the 
failure  to  restate  a  precept  is  certainly  no  proof  that 
it  was  abolished.  But  in  any  case,  Christ's  attitude 
toward  the  Sabbath,  as  already  shown,  is  the  equiva- 
lent of  a  restatement  of  the  Sabbath  precept. 

God  said  ( Jer.  31,33)  that  He  would  write  His  law 
on  the  hearts  of  His  people,  and  the  whole  history  of 
the  Christian  Church  shows  that  the  Sabbath  pre- 
cept was  not  omitted.  The  fact,  also,  that  there  is 
no  definite  code  of  laws  given  anywhere  in  the  New 
Testament,  argues  that  the  code  of  laws  already 
existing  was  not  abolished. 

Again  it  is  claimed  that  the  Sabbath  precept  was 
a  ceremonial,  not  a  moral,  precept,  and  hence  that 
tlie  Sabbath  of  the  law  was  only  a  Jewish  ceremonial 
ordinance. 

It  seems  evident  that  those  who  hold  this  view  see 
in  the  Sabbath  precept  only  the  fixed  day  element 


THE  DECALOGUE  371 

of  the  Sabbath.  We  have  already  shown,  as  we  be- 
lieve, in  a  former  chapter,  that  the  fixed  day  element 
of  the  Sabbath  was  never  any  part  of  the  SabbatK 
precept.  The  fact  that  it  is,  in  an  economic  sense, 
essential  to  the  highest  value  of  the  Sabbath,  does 
not  argue  that  it  was  an  essential  part  of  the  Sab- 
bath precept;  for  God  is  fully  able,  through  his 
providence,  to  take  care  of  the  economic  element  of 
the  Sabbath  outside  of  any  precept.  And  that  He 
did  so  is  practically  proven  in  the  fact  that  the  fixing 
of  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  in  every  instance  was 
attended  by  a  special  day-fixing  dispensation  of 
providence;  for  example,  the  manna  in  and  of  it- 
self, necessarily  fixed  the  day  of  the  Jewish  Sabbath, 
and  the  Resurrection,  in  and  of  itself,  necessarily 
fixed  the  day  of  the  Christian  Sabbath.  Now,  if 
these  dispensations  of  providence  necessarily,  in 
and  of  themselves,  fixed  .the  day  of  the  Sabbath, 
then  it  was  manifestly  not  necessary  to  fix  the  day  by 
a  definite  precept ;  and  we  know  that  God  does  noth- 
ing that  is  unnecessary. 

Now,  if  the  Sabbath  precept  does  not  fix  the  day 
of  the  Sabbath,  then  it  deals  only  with  the  every 
seventh  day  element  of  the  Sabbath,  which  is  essen- 
tially a  moral  element. 

The  setting  aside  of  a  definite  part  of  our  time  to 
the  worship  of  God  is  a  definite  acknowledgment  of 
God's  authority,  and  a  declaration  of  allegiance.  It 
is  also  an  acknowledgment  of  our  debt  to  God  as 
the  giver  of  time  and  with  it  all  that  we  possess. 
Also,  the  Sabbath  as  a  creation  memorial  is  an  ac- 
knowledgment of  our  faith  in  God  as  the  Creator  of 
the  universe. 


372  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

These  acknowledgments  are  purely  moral  duties 
because  they  are  God's  rightful  due;  and  hence  the 
precept  that  requires  them  is  purely  a  moral  pre- 
cept. Of  courlse,  God  only  had  the  right  to  ^x  the 
proportion  of  time  to  be  devoted  to  these  duties; 
and  a  definite  proportion  of  time  was  manifestly 
necessary  to  make  the  Sabbath  precept  a  definite 
precept.  All  history  testifies  that  the  Sabbath  is 
essential  to  man's  highest  physical,  mental,  intellec- 
tual, social,  spiritual,  and  moral  development, — all 
of  which  are  essential  to  his  highest  usefulness  to  the 
end  for  which  he  was  created. 

Furthermore,  it  naturally  and  inevitably  results, 
that  just  in  proportion  as  people  neglect  the  Sab- 
bath, they  forget  God,  and  just  in  proportion  as  they 
forget  God,  they  ignore  His  law.  In  this  sense,  the 
Sabbath  precept  is  the  mainspring  of  all ;  for  which 
reason,  doubtless,  it  was  put  in  the  very  heart  of  the 
Decalogue. 

All  of  these  facts  testify  that  the  Sabbath  precept 
is  a  purely  moral  precept. 

One  thing  is  self-evident,  that  a  moral  precept 
deals  only  with  a  moral  issue.  Now,  since  the  fixed 
day  element  of  the  Sabbath  is,  in  its  nature,  an  econ- 
omic, not  a  moral  issue,  it  is  evidently  not  based  on  a 
moral  precept ;  and  if  the  Sabbath  precept  is  wholly 
a  moral  precept,  it  does  not  ^x  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath. 

All  of  the  Decalogue  abolishing  theories  necessar- 
ily involve  the  assumption  that  the  Jewish  Sabbath 
was  the  Sabbath  of  the  law ;  from  which  it  would  fol- 
low that  if  the  Jewish  Sabbath  was  abolished,  the 
Sabbath  law  was  also  abolished,  and  if  the  Sabbath 


THE  DECALOGUE  373 

law  was  abolished,  the  whole  Decalogue  was  abol- 
ished. But  if  the  assumption  is  false,  it  proves 
nothing. 

Again,  the  Decalogue  abolishing  theories  neces- 
sarily involve  the  assumption  that  the  Decalogue 
consisted  in  the  exact  wording  of  the  law,  and  that 
any  change  in  the  exact  wording  of  it,  necessarily 
abolished  it ;  for  it  is  only  on  this  principle  that  any 
of  the  precepts  can  be  abolished  and  the  sense  of 
them  immediately  restored.  But  if  the  assumption 
is  false,  it  proves  nothing.  And  that  the  assump- 
tion is  false  is  proved  in  the  fact  that  the  two  copies 
of  the  Decalogue,  given  in  Exodus  20  and  Deuter- 
omy  5,  are  worded  quite  differently. 

Now,  if  the  Decalogue  does  not  consist  in  the  exact 
wording  of  the  law,  but  in  the  moral  principles  in- 
volved, then  the  fact,  as  claimed,  that  all  but  one  of 
the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  are  practically  re- 
stored in  the  New  Testament,  proves  that  at  least 
nine  of  the  precepts  of  the  Decalogue  have  never 
been  abolished.  But  if  any  are  not  abolished,  none 
are  abolished ;  for  they  all  stand  on  equal  authority. 
This  is  certainly  decisive  proof  that  the  Decalogue  is 
not  abolished,  and  that  the  Sabbath  still  rests  on  the 
direct  command  of  God  in  the  Sabbath  precept. 

The  doctrine  that  the  Decalogue  was  abolished  and 
all  but  the  Sabbath  precept  restored,  is  advanced  in 
the  supposed  interest  of  the  Christian  Sabbath ;  but 
it  deprives  the  Christian  Sabbath  of  its  authority; 
for  if  it  does  not  rest  on  the  law  of  God,  it  has  no 
authority.  Those  who  wish  to  ignore  the  Sabbath, 
find  full  vindication  in  this  doctrine.     Those  who 


374  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

would  do  away  with  the  Sabbath  altogether,  find 
their  strongest  argument  in  this  doctrine.  And 
those  who  oppose  Sabbath  legislation,  find  in  this 
doctrine  their  most  effective  weapon.  Thus  those 
who  teach  this  doctrine  unintentionally  ally  them- 
selves with  the  enemies  of  the  Christain  Sabbath. 

It  is  also  because  of  the  practical  admission  of  this 
doctrine,  that  Adventists  score  their  strongest  point ; 
for  the  doctrine  practically  admits  that  the  Sabbath 
law  fixes  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  as  the  Sab- 
bath. And  this  admission  by  those  who  claim  to  be 
the  champions  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  strengthens 
the  Adventists  more  than  all  else  combined;  for 
then  the  whole  issue  turns  on  the  question  of  the 
abolition  of  the  Decalogue — and  on  this  question  Ad- 
ventists are  fully  able  to  hold  their  own. 

But  in  reality,  the  whole  issue  turns  on  the  ques- 
tion, Does  the  Sabbath  law  fix  the  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath? And  we  believe  that  we  have,  in  previous 
chapters,  fully  sustained  the  position  that  it  does 
not.  Certain  it  is  that  the  interest  of  the  Chrisian 
Sabbath  cannot  be  permanently  advanced  by  any 
false  doctrine. 


CHAPTER  XX. 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION". 


Whatever  vitally  concerns  the  welfare  of  a  nation 
is  a  legitimate  subject  of  national  legislation.  This 
proposition  is  too  self-evident  to  be  disputed;  and, 
therefore,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  the  Sabbath  vitally 
concerns  the  welfare  of  a  nation,  then  the  nation  that 
fails  to  make  proper  Sabbath  legislation  is,  to  that 
extent,  negligent  in  regard  to  its  own  national  wel- 
fare. 

Vitality,  morality  and  intelligence  are  essential  to 
the  highest  type  of  citizenship.  These  elements  are 
fostered  by  a  proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath ;  but 
Sabbath  desecration  tends  in  the  opposite  direction. 
The  proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath  makes  God- 
fearing citizens,  and  these,  as  a  rule,  are  the  most 
law-abiding  citizens ;  and  these  are  the  strength  of  a 
nation. 

Adam  Smith,  who  is  one  of  the  highest  authorities 
on  political  economy,  says,  ^^The  Sabbath  as  a  politi- 
cal institution  is  of  inestimable  value,  independently 


376  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

of  its  claim  to  divine  antliority." — Blackstone,  the 
great  law  commentator  {Commentaries,  Bk.  IV,  cli. 
4)  says,  ^'The  keeping  one  day  in  seven  holy,  as  a 
means  of  relaxation  and  refreshment,  as  well  as  for 
public  worship,  is  of  admirable  service  to  the  State, 
considered  merely  as  a  civil  institution.  It  human- 
izes, by  the  help  of  conversation  and  society,  the 
manners  of  the  lower  classes,  which  would  otherwise 
degenerate  into  a  sordid  ferocity  and  savage  selfish- 
ness of  spirit.  It  enables  the  industrious  workman 
to  pursue  his  occupation  in  the  ensuing  week  with 
health  and  cheerfulness ;  it  imprints  upon  the  minds 
of  the  people  that  sense  of  their  duty  to  God  so  nec- 
essary to  make  them  good  citizens,  but  which  yet  may 
be  worn  out  and  defaced  by  an  unremitting  continu- 
ance of  labor  without  any  stated  times  of  recalling 
them  to  the  worship  of  their  maker. ' ' — Lord  Macau- 
ley,  in  a  speech  in  Parliament  said,  ^^Man !  man !  this 
is  the  great  creator  of  wealth.  The  difference  be- 
tween the  soil  of  Campania  and  Spitzbergen  is  insig- 
nificant compared  with  the  difference  presented  by 
two  countries,  the  one  inhabited  by  men  full  of  moral 
and  physical  vigor,  the  other  by  beings  plunged  in 
intellectual  decrepitude.  Hence  it  is  that  we  are  not 
impoverished  but  on  the  contrary  enriched  by  this 
seventh  day,  which  we  have  for  so  many  years  de- 
voted to  rest.  This  day  is  not  lost.  While  the  ma- 
chinery is  stopped,  while  the  car  rests  on  the  road, 
while  the  treasury  is  silent,  while  the  smoke  ceases 
to  rise  from  the  chimney  of  the  factory,  the  nation 
enriches  itself  none  the  less  than  during  the  working 
days  of  the  week.  Man,  the  machine  of  all  machines, 
the  one  by  the  side  of  which  all  the  inventions  of  the 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  377 

Wattses  and  the  Arkwrights  are  as  nothing,  is  recu- 
perating and  gaining  strength  so  well  that  on  Mon- 
day he  returns  to  his  work  with  his  mind  clearer, 
with  more  courage  for  his  work  and  with  renewed 
vigor.  I  will  never  believe  that  that  which  renders  a 
people  stronger,  wiser,  and  better  can  ever  turn  to 
its  impoverishment — Rev.  George  T.  Washburn 
{''The  Sabbath  for  Man/'  p.  221)  says,  ^^There  is 
not  a  non-Sabbath-keeping  nation  that  is  not 
abjectly  poor.'' — Joseph  Cook  (Boston  Monday  Lec- 
tures: ''Biology,"  p.  162)  says,  ''I  am  no  fanatic,  I 
hope,  as  to  Sunday;  but  I  look  abroad  over  the  map 
of  popular  freedom  in  the  world,  and  it  does  not 
seem  to  me  accidental  that  Switzerland,  Scotland, 
England  and  the  United  States,  the  countries  which 
best  observe,  Sunday,  constitute  almost  the  entire 
map  of  safe  popular  government. ' ' — The  celebrated 
Count  Montalembert  (a  French  Roman  Catholic) 
says, ' '  Impartial  men  are  convinced  that  the  political 
education  by  which  the  lower  classes  of  the  English 
nation  surpass  other  nations — that  the  extraordin- 
ary wealth  of  England  and  its  supreme  maritime 
power — are  clear  proofs  of  the  blessing  of  God  be- 
stowed upon  this  nation  for  its  distinguished  Sab- 
bath observance.  Those  who  behold  the  enormous 
commerce  of  England,  in  the  harbors,  the  railways, 
the  manufactories,  etc.,  cannot  see  without  astonish- 
ment the  quiet  of  the  Sabbath  day.'' — Dr.  SchafE 
{Princeto7i  Review^  vol.  XXXV.,  p.  570)  says,  '^Take 
away  the  Sabbath  and  you  destroy  the  most  humane 
and' most  democratic  institution  which  in  every  re- 
spvo<3t  was  made  for  man  but  more  particularly  for 
the  man  of  labor  and  toil,  of  poverty  and  sorrow. 


378  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

Take  away  the  Sabbath  and  you  destroy  a  mighty 
conservative  force,  and  dry  up  a  fountain  from 
which  the  family,  the  church,  and  the  state  receive 
constant  nourishment  and  support.  Take  away  the 
Sabbath,  and  you  shake  the  moral  foundations  of  our 
national  power  and  prosperity,  our  churches  will  be 
forsaken,  our  Sunday-schools  emptied,  our  domestic 
devotions  will  languish,  the  fountains  of  public  and 
private  virtue  will  dry  up ;  a  flood  of  profanity,  licen- 
tiousness and  vice  will  inundate  the  land ;  labor  will 
lose  its  reward,  liberty  be  deprived  of  its  pillar,  self- 
government  will  prove  a  failure,  and  our  republican 
institutions  end  in  anarchy  and  confusion,  to  give 
way,  in  due  time,  to  the  most  oppressive  and  degrad- 
ing military  despotism  known  in  the  annals  of  his- 
tory. Yea,  the  end  of  the  Sabbath  would  be  for 
America  the  beginning  of  the  unlimited  reign  of  the 
infernal  idol-trinity  of  Mammon,  Bacchus  and 
Venus,  and  overwhelm  us  at  last  in  temporal  and 
eternal  ruin." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  add  further  testimony  on  this 
point,  for  the  whole  trend  of  evidence  is  in  one  direc- 
tion, namely,  that  the  Sabbath  question  vitally  con- 
cerns the  welfare  of  a  nation.  This  is  increasingly 
true  in  proportion  as  the  people  have  a  voice  in  the 
government,  and  thus  stamp  their  individual  char- 
acters upon  the  government;  and  hence  true  in  the 
highest  degree  in  a  republican  form  of  government, 
as  the  United  States,  in  which  the  character  of  the 
government  depends  directly  on  the  vitality,  mor- 
ality, and  intelligence  of  the  people;  and,  since  the 
proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath  fosters  these  ele- 
ments of  national  greatness,  perhaps  more  than  any 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION"  379 

other  one  influence,  it  vitally  concerns  tlie  welfare  of 
the  nation. 

Christianity  is  the  recognized  foundation  of  Chris- 
tian government:  the  true  principles  of  Christian 
morality  are  all  on  the  side  of  right  government. 

The  most  civilized,  prosperous,  and  powerful  na- 
tions of  the  earth  are  the  Protestant  Christian  na- 
tions. This  fact  can  only  be  due  to  the  blessing  of 
God.  For,  ^'Blessed  is  the  nation  whose  God  is  the 
Lord.''  (Ps.  33  :  12). — ^^Righteousness  exalteth  a  na- 
tion.'' (Prov.  14  :34). 

The  Christian  Sabbath  is  a  distinctive  mark  of  all 
Christian  nations.  Judge  McLean  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  said,  ^^  Where  there  is  no 
Christian  Sabbath  there  is  no  Christian  morality; 
and  without  this,  free  government  cannot  long  be 
sustained.  Voltaire,  the  avowed  enemy  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion,  said,  ^^  There  is  no  hope  of  destroying 
the  Christian  religion  as  long  as  the  Christian  Sab- 
bath is  acknowledged  and  kept  by  men  as  a  sacred 
day."  ^ 

Therefore,  the  Christian  Sabbath  is  vital  to  the  I 
Christian  religion,  and  the  Christian  religion  is  vital 
to  Christian  government.  Hence  the  Sabbath  ques- 
tion ranks  as  a  vital  issue  just  as  the  nation  ranks  as 
a  Christian  nation ;  and  not  until  a  nation  forfeits  its 
right  to  be  called  a  Christian  nation  will  the  Sabbath 
as  a  Christian  institution  cease  to  come  within  the 
proper  range  of  its  legislative  authority. 

One  of  the  primary  ends  of  legislation  is  the  pro- 
tection of  personal  rights;  and  one  of  the  personal 
-rights  that  belong  peculiarly  to  the  laboring  class  is 
the  weekly  Sabbath  of  rest.     This  class  forms  the 


380  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

greater  part  of  any  nation,  and  npon  it  tlie  wealth 
and  prosperity  of  a  nation  mainly  depends.  Their 
rights  are  certainly  entitled  to  protection.  Christ 
said,  ^^The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man;"  hence  it 
is  one  of  man's  inherited  rights,  and,  as  such,  is  as 
much  entitled  to  the  protection  of  the  law  as  any 
other  of  his  inherited  rights. 

First.  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man's  physical 
welfare.  It  has  been  abundantly  proved,  by  actual 
tests,  that  both  man  and  beast  can  accomplish  more 
work,  in  the  long  run,  by  resting  every  seventh  day, 
than  by  working  every  day  and  at  the  same  time  keep 
in  better  physical  condition. 

It  might  be  supposed  that  additional  daily  rest 
amounting  to  one  day  in  seven  would  be  equivalent 
to  an  every  seventh  day  of  rest.  This  would  doubt- 
less be  true  if  it  were  merely  a  question  of  the  rela- 
tive proportion  of  labor  and  rest;  but  the  alternate 
action  and  reaction  of  a  regularly  repeated  strain 
produces  a  vibrating  condition  which  gradually  in- 
creases in  strain  with  each  repetition  and  soon 
reaches  the  point  of  overstrain.  For  this  reason,  an 
army  in  crossing  a  bridge  is  ordered  to  break  step, 
as  the  constantly  increasing  strain  of  the  vibrations 
produced  by  the  regularly  timed  tread  of  the  army 
would  soon  injure  and  in  time  destroy  the  bridge. 

Life  (the  body)  is  the  bridge  between  birth  and 
death,  and  daily  toil  may  be  likened  to  the  regularly 
timed  tread  of  the  army.  A  certain  number  of  treads 
of  the  army  would  not  produce  overstrain ;  so  there 
is  a  safe  limit.  Six  days  of  toil  in  succession  seems  to 
be  the  safe  limit  fixed  by  nature  in  applying  the  prin- 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  381 

ciple  to  the  bridge  of  life;  the  seventh  day  of  rest 
breaks  up  the  vibrating  strain  and  restores  the  nor- 
mal condition  of  life.  Increasing  the  amount  of 
daily  rest  would  correspond  in  effect  to  opening  the 
ranks  of  the  army  so  that  fewer  men  would  be  on  the 
bridge  at  one  time,  and  thus  diminish  the  force  of 
each  separate  tread  of  the  army. 

Some  men  have,  by  birthright,  greater  natural 
strength  and  vitality  than  others,  and  are  able  there- 
fore, to  endure  with  safety  longer  periods  of  labor 
and  require  shorter  periods  of  rest.  Hence  the  nor- 
mal relative  proportion  between  daily  labor  and  rest 
differs  in  different  men;  but  nature  bases  its  laws 
upon  normal  conditions ;  and  therefore  the  law  of  one 
day  rest  in  seven  is  based  on  the  condition  that  the 
relative  proportion  between  daily  labor  and  rest  is 
normal  in  each  individual  case. 

Attempts  have  been  made  to  change  nature's  pro- 
portion of  one  day  in  seven,  but  all  such  attempts 
have  ended  in  failure ;  for  if  the  proportion  be  dimin- 
ished, the  output  of  labor  falls  short  of  the  normal 
capacity  of  the  human  machine,  and  if  the  proportion 
be  increased,  the  human  machine  is  injured  and  its 
normal  capacity  diminished.  Nature's  Sabbath  law 
must  necessarily  be  the  same  as  the  Sabbath  law  of 
God's  word;  for  Nature's  laws  are  God's  laws,  and 
God  would  not  make  two  conflicting  laws.  We  see 
then  that  God's  Sabbath  law  is  not  arbitrary,  but  is 
based  on  a  need  in  man's  nature  and  therefore  madQ 
for  man's  good.  i 

Rest  is  necessary  to  give  nature  an  opportunity  to 
renew  the  labor  consumed  tissues  of  the  body.  In 
the  case  of  animals  in  their  natural  state,  we  observe 


382  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

no  indication  that  nature  requires  a  weekly  rest,  but 
neither  are  they  subject  to  the  monotonous  unvary- 
ing routine  strain  of  daily  toil ;  from  which  it  is  evi- 
dent, that,  from  the  animal  standpoint  merely,  the 
necessity  of  a  weekly  day  of  rest  is  due  solely  to  the 
regularly  timed  treadlike  nature  of  daily  toil.  And 
thus  it  is  that  the  weekly  Sabbath  of  rest  is  peculiar- 
ly the  birthright  of  the  laboring  man  and  of  those 
domestic  animals  that  labor  in  his  service. 

*'A  clamor  is  raised  that  certain  kinds  of  service 
are  required  all  the  time.  The  least  that  can  be  said 
in  reply  is — the  fact  that  some  kinds  of  work  are 
regarded  as  necessary  twenty-four  hours  a  day  has 
not  been  held  a  plausible  reason  for  urging  that  the 
same  persons  should  be  employed  twenty-four  hours 
a  day.  The  same  principle  must  be  applied  to  the 
week.''  (From  an  editorial  in  The  Christian  En- 
deavor World  of  April  3rd,  1913.) 

It  may  also  be  observed  in  passing  that  the  laws  of 
nature  never  rest.  But  if  this  argued  that  a  weekly 
day  of  rest  was  contrary  to  nature,  it  would  also 
argue  the  same  in  regard  to  daily  rest ;  for  the  laws 
of  nature  require  neither  daily  nor  weekly  rest,  but 
are  perpetual  and  unchanging  in  their  nature  and 
not  subject  to  strain  or  destruction. 
\  The  practically  unanimous  testimony  of  eminent 
physicians,  who  have  given  their  testimony  on  the 
subject,  is,  that,  other  things  being  equal,  those  who 
rest  one  day  in  seven  will  be  healthier,  live  longer, 
and  accomplish  more  work  than  those  who  work 
every  day,  whether  with  brain  or  hands.  For  a  few 
of  these  testimonies  we  refer  to  Waffle  {The  Lord^s 
Day,  pp.  59-62)  and  Gilfillan  {The  Sahbath,  pp. 
173-183.) 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION"  383 

The  fact  that  a  weekly  day  of  rest  is  essential  to 
the  preservation  of  the  health  of  the  laboring  class, 
is  too  well  established  to  be  successfully  disputed. 
Now,  what  so  vitally  concerns  the  physical  welfare 
of  the  laboring  class,  vitally  concerns  the  nation; 
and  what  vitally  concerns  the  nation  is  a  legitimate 
subject  of  national  legislation. 

Second.  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man's  intel- 
lectual welfare.  The  mind,  as  well  as  the  body,  is 
subject  to  strain  and  fatigue;  and  just  as  physical 
overwork  tends  to  physical  breakdown,  so  mental 
overwork  tends  to  mental  breakdown  or  insanity. 
The  brain,  or  seat  of  the  intellect,  is,  in  fact,  a  part 
of  the  body,  and  brain  rest  is  a  physical  necessity. 

But  we  wish  here  to  consider  the  question  purely 
from  the  intellectual  standpoint.  We  have  shown 
that  man,  merely  as  a  human  machine,  needs  the 
weekly  day  of  rest  to  keep  the  machine  in  good  work- 
ing order.  But  man  is  more  than  a  mere  machine : 
the  intellect  and  the  soul  of  man  is  the  image  of  God 
that  distinguishes  man  as  superior  to  other  animals ; 
and  the  more  this  image  of  God  is  cultivated  and 
developed,  the  higher  man  is  lifted  above  the  plane  of 
the  lower  animals.  Unceasing  toil  inevitably  tends 
to  intellectual  degradation.  Men  must  have  time  for 
intellectual  improvement  or  they  necessarily  become 
stupid,  ignorant  and  brutish,  and  little  better  than 
beasts  of  burden.  The  social,  moral  and  religious 
progress,  not  only  of  the  individual,  but  of  the  race, 
depends  on  intellectual  development. 

It  might  be  argued  that  if  the  evenings  (after  the 
day's  labor)  were  properly  devoted  to  mental  im- 


384  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

provement,  tlie  intellectual  needs  of  tlie  laboring 
class  would  thus  be  supplied.  But  the  mind  can  ac- 
complish little  with  a  tired  body,  and  few  have  suffi- 
cient energy  and  interest  left  after  the  day's  work 
is  done;  and  this  would  be  still  more  true  if  they 
were  compelled  to  work  continuously  day  after  day. 
The  weekly  day  of  rest,  therefore,  is  practically  the. 
only  time  for  the  intellectual  development  of  the^ 
laboring  class. 

Those  who  labor  with  their  brains,  as  office  em- 
ployees, etc.,  also  farmers,  merchants,  mechanics, 
tradesmen,  and  all  others  who  labor  with  their 
brains  as  w^ell  as  with  their  hands,  may  properly  be 
included  with  the  laboring  class.  But  those  who  thus 
labor  with  their  brains  have  their  intellect  developed 
only  along  the  one  line  in  which  they  are  empolyed, 
and  need  the  weekly  day  of  rest  for  general  intellec- 
tual development. 

Those  who  are  engaged  almost  wholly  in  intellec- 
tual pursuits,  as  doctors,  lawyers,  preachers,  teach- 
ers, etc.,  need  a  weekly  day  of  rest  more  for  physical 
than  for  intellectual  reasons.  But  we  must  remem- 
ber that  the  great  mass  of  the  human  race  always 
have  and  always  will  belong  to  the  laboring  class, 
and  especially  to  the  manual  laboring  class,  who 
most  need  the  weekly  day  of  rest.  And  where  these 
are  intrusted  with  the  ballot,  their  intellectual  devel- 
opment is  of  the  most  vital  concern  to  the  welfare  of 
the  nation. 

We  have  shown  that  the  weekly  day  of  rest  is  vi- 
tally important  to  this  end,  and  hence  what  so  vitally 
concerns  the  welfare  of  the  nation  cannot  fail  to  be  a 
legitimate  subject  of  national  legislation. 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  385 

Third.  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man's  social 
welfare.  The  whole  social  structure  is  made  up  of 
individuals  combined  into  families,  families  into 
communities,  and  communities  into  nations.  What- 
ever strengthens  the  social  ties  that  bind  a  nation 
together,  strengthens  the  nation.  That  the  proper 
observance  of  the  Sabbath  is  one  of  the  most  potent 
influences  to  this  end,  we  think,  can  hardly  be  ques- 
tioned. The  weekly  Sabbath,  in  its  rest  from  labor 
and  business  cares,  furnishes  the  only  favorable  op- 
portunity for  the  laboring  man  to  enjoy  the  society 
of  his  family,  and  thus  strengthens  the  family  social 
tie,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  foundation  of  the 
whole  social  structure. 

It  is  a  significant  fact,  that  divorces  increase  as  the 
moral  restraints  of  the  Sabbath  decrease.  Dr. 
Lowe,  an  eminent  physician  of  Berlin,  in  a  speech 
in  the  German  Parliament  on  a  bill  to  prevent  em- 
ployers from  compelling  their  workmen  to  work  on 
Sunday,  said,  ^^I  have  had  occasion  in  my  career  as 
a  physician  to  visit  more  than  nine  thousand  work- 
men who  worked  on  Sunday  in  their  shops  or  at  their 
homes,  and  I  have  it  on  proof  that  Sunday  labor  has 
the  most  disastrous  e:ffect.  In  their  homes  slovenli- 
ness and  discord  reign :  the  life  of  the  wineshop  has 
supplanted  the  family  life. ' '  (Quoted  from  Waffle — • 
The  Lord's  Day,  pp.  99.)  This  shows,  by  contrast, 
the  influence  of  the  proper  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath on  family  life. 

Cleanliness  and  neatness  tend  to  health,  refine- 
ment, and  self-respect,  while  dirt  and  untidiness  tend 
in  the  opposite  direction.  The  Sabbath,  in  its  respite 
from  toil  and  in  its  opportunity  for  family  and  social 


386  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

intercourse,  is  a  strong  incentive  to  the  laboring  man 
to  wash  and  put  on  clean  clothes ;  and,  added  to  this, 
the  habit  of  assembling  together  to  worship,  clean 
and  neatly  dressed,  has  a  humanizing,  refining,  and 
elevating  tendency,  the  value  of  which,  in  its  effect, 
both  on  the  individual  and  on  society,  cannot  be  over- 
estimated. 

Again,  the  broad  mark  of  distinction  between  the 
rich  and  the  poor  is  largely  obliterated  on  the  Lord's 
day;  and  if  they  assemble  together  to  worship  in 
the  true  spirit  of  the  day,  class  distinction  is  laid 
aside:  they  come  to  know  each  other  better, — the 
rich  become  more  humble  and  the  poor  more  self- 
respecting, — and  the  bond  of  human  sympathy  is 
strengthened ;  and,  in  so  far  as  the  Sabbath  is  thus 
observed,  it  tends  to  lessen  the  friction  between  capi- 
tal and  labor. 

Hence  the  proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
strengthens  all  the  social  ties  that  bind  society,  and, 
in  turn,  the  nation,  together ;  and  thus  it  vitally  con- 
cerns the  welfare  of  the  nation,  and  is  therefore  a 
legitimate  subject  for  national  legislation. 

Fourth.  The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man's  moral 
and  religious  welfare.  Upon  the  moral  character  of 
man,  more  than  upon  anything  else,  depends  the  wel- 
fare of  society,  and  certainly  what  concerns  the  wel- 
fare of  society  cannot  fail  to  concern  the  welfare  of 
the  state  or  nation.  Does  the  Sabbath,  then,  exert  a 
moral  or  an  immoral  influence  upon  the  character  of 
man! 

It  is  admitted  that  the  answer  to  this  question 
'depends  on  the  manner  of  the  Sabbath  observance; 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  387 

for,  while  the  proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  in 
its  very  nature,  can  only  exert  a  moral  influence,  so 
the  improper  observance  of  the  Sabbath  must  neces- 
sarily, in  the  very  reverse  nature  of  the  observance 
exert  the  reverse  influence. 

But  we  are  considering  here  only  the  proper  ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath.  Webster  quoted  the  fol- 
lowing, in  his  speech  on  the  Girard  Will  case :  *  ^  You 
might  as  well  put  out  the  sun  and  think  to  enlighten 
the  world  with  tapers,  destroy  the  attraction  of 
gravitation  and  think  to  wield  the  universe  by  human 
powers,  as  to  extinguish  the  moral  illumination  of 
the  Sabbath  and  break  this  glorious  mainspring  of 
the  moral  government  of  God. ' ' 

The  Sabbath  is  essentially  a  religious  institution 
since  it  has  its  origin  in  the  moral  law  of  God.  It 
is  impossible  therefore  to  consider  the  moral  char- 
acter of  the  Sabbath  aside  from  its  religious  char- 
acter ;  for  the  moral  influence  of  the  Sabbath  depends 
on  its  religious  observance.  Man's  religious  nature 
underlies  his  moral  nature. 

True  moral  perceptions  are  due  to  a  religious 
sense  of  duty  to  God  and  to  our  fellow-man.  There 
is  a  sort  of  superficial  morality  based  on  expediency 
and  self-interest;  but  the  morality  that  produces  a 
sense  of  guilt  or  innocence  lies  deeper  in  man's  rel- 
igious nature. 

The  religious  instinct  is  one  of  the  strongest 
instincts  of  man's  nature.  If  directed  in  the  right 
direction,  it  lifts  man  to  a  high  plane  of  moral  char- 
acter ;  but,  in  combination  with  ignorance  and  super- 
stition, it  may  indeed  prove,  as  history  attests,  a 
very  dangerous  element,  both  to  society  and  to  the 


388  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

state.  In  the  very  capacity  for  good  lies  the  capacity 
for  evil,  depending  wholly  on  the  direction  in  which 
the  capacity  is  directed. 

The  safety  therefore  of  society  and  State  lies  in 
directing  the  capacity  in  the  right  direction.  The 
one  right  direction  for  the  religious  instinct  is  the 
direction  pointed  out  in  the  word  of  God  by  Him  who 
created  the  religious  instinct.  The  more  light  that 
is  thrown  on  the  word  of  God,  and  the  better  it  is 
understood,  the  more  is  ignorance  and  superstition 
dispelled.  And  the  better  man  understands  his  true 
relation  to  God  and  to  his  fellow-man,  the  better  is 
he  qualified  for  citizenship.  How  is  all  this  to  be 
attained  without  the  Sabbath,  and  the  instructions  of 
the  pulpit! — for  only  by  keeping  the  Sabbath  are 
men  enabled  to  meet  for  worship  and  religious  in- 
struction. 

The  word  of  God  is  the  highest  moral  standard, 
and  all  its  principles  are  on  the  side  of  good  govern- 
ment; and  to  inculcate  these  principles  is  the  pri- 
mary end  and  purpose  of  the  Sabbath  institution.  A 
high  standard  of  moral  character  in  those  who  are 
intrusted  with  the  ballot  is  certainly  a  matter  of  vital 
importance  to  free  government ;  and  the  Sabbath  is 
the  most  potent  influence  to  this  end. 

Hence  the  Sabbath  vitally  concerns  the  welfare  of 
the  nation,  and  is  therefore  a  legitimate  subject  of 
national  legislation;  for  whatever  vitally  concerns, 
in  any  sense,  the  welfare  of  a  nation  comes  within 
the  legitimate  range  of  its  legislative  authority. 

The  proper  extent  and  limits  of  Sabbath  Legisla- 
tion is  the  next  important  phase  of  the  subject.    If 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION"  389 

the  welfare  of  the  nation,  from  the  standpoint  of 
political  economy,  is  the  justification  for  Sabbath 
legislation,  then  the  same  consideration  of  welfare 
necessarily  determines  the  justifiable  extent  and  lim- 
its of  Sabbath  legislation.  It  is  only  necessary 
therefore  to  determine  what  legislation  is  needed  to 
make  the  institution  of  the  Sabbath  of  the  greatest 
economic  value  to  the  nation. 

It  is  evident  that  the  economic  value  of  the  Sab- 
bath to  the  nation  is  just  in  proportion  as  it  pro- 
motes the  physical,  intellectual,  social,  moral  and 
religious  welfare  of  the  individuals  who  comprise 
the  nation;  for  the  character  of  a  nation  is  only  the 
sum  total  of  the  characters  of  the  people  who  com- 
prise it. 

The  promotion  of  the  physical,  intellectual,  social, 
moral  and  religious  welfare  of  man  is  also  the  Divine 
purpose  of  the  Sabbath.  We  see,  therefore,  that  the 
greatest  economic  value  of  the  Sabbath  to  the  nation 
lies  in  direct  line  with  its  Divine  purpose.  Hence  the 
Divine  blessing  on  the  proper  observance  of  the  Sab- 
bath ;  for  it  is  only  in  its  proper  observance  that  the 
highest  physical,  intellectual,  social,  moral  and  reli- 
gious benefit  is  derived  therefrom.  That  this  is  true 
is  proof  of  the  Divine  origin  of  the  Sabbath. 

Therefore,  Sabbath  laws  that  tend  to  promote  the 
proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath,  in  so  far  as  they 
do  not  conflict  with  the  true  principles  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty,  are  justifiable  on  the  ground  that 
the  proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath  conduces  to 
the  welfare  of  the  nation. 

The  proper  observance  of  the  Sabbath  may  be 
defined  as  that  which  is  in  accordance  with  God's 


390  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

purpose  in  instituting  it.  And  His  cliief  purpose  in 
instituting  it  was  manifestly  to  keep  man  from  for- 
getting his  maker  and  his  own  immortal  welfare. 
This  makes  the  Sabbath  essentially  a  religious  insti- 
tution. To  ignore  the  religious  element  of  the  Sab- 
bath is,  at  the  same  time,  to  ignore  man^s  religious 
nature  and  repudiate  God 's  claim  to  worship. 

Those  who  would  abolish  the  Sabbath  altogether 
are  invariably  those  who  would  also  gladly  abolish 
God  and  religion.  Do  away  with  the  religious  ele- 
ment of  the  Sabbath  and  its  moral  influence  is  de- 
stroyed ;  and  its  physical,  intellectual  and  social  use, 
being  untempered  by  moral  restraint,  naturally  tend 
to  excitement,  dissipation  and  carousal,  which  is  the 
reverse  of  true  physical  rest,  intellectual  develop- 
ment, and  social  improvement. 

By  reason  of  Sunday  carousal,  many  workmen  are 
unfitted  for  work  Monday  morning.  Sunday  excur- 
sions, with  their  attendant  crowds,  excitement  and 
dissipation,  resulting  in  late  hours  and  weariness, 
have  practically  no  justification  on  the  ground  of 
public  welfare.  Excitement  and  dissipation  is 
neither  rest  nor  physical  relaxation.  ^^Of  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  replies  from  employers,  nearly  all 
testify  that  church  goers  are  better  fitted  for  work 
on  Monday  morning  than  Sunday  excursionists, — 
and  most  of  them  were  very  emphatic  as  to  the  di- 
sastrous physical  effects  of  Sunday  excursions.*' 
[The  Sahhath  for  Man,  pp.  209-214). 

It  will  be  seen  then,  that  the  religious  use  of  the 
Sabbath  is  the  very  key  to  its  full  value,  even  from 
the  standpoint  of  political  economy ;  and  hence  Sab- 
bath laws  that  have  in  view  the  national  welfare, 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  391 

cannot  ignore  the  religious  element  of  the  Sabbath. 
Indeed,  the  religious  observance  of  the  Sabbath  must 
necessarily  be  the  chief  end  of  such  laws,  if  they 
have  in  view  the  highest  welfare  of  the  nation. 

The  true  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty 
do  not  conflict  with  proper  Sabbath  legislation.  It 
is  not  the  aim  of  proper  Sabbath  legislation  to  com- 
pel any  one  to  attend  public  worship  or  accept 
Christianity  or  conform  to  any  prescribed  form  of 
religion.  If  such  were  the  aim,  then  they  wo  aid  con- 
flict with  the  principles  of  Christianity  as  well  as 
w^ith  the  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty ;  for 
Christianity  recognizes  the  free  moral  agency  of 
man,  and  that  men  cannot  be  made  Christians  by 
force. 

Sabbath  laws  may  (without  interfering  with  civil 
or  religious  liberty)  aim  to  make  the  Sabbath  recog- 
nized as  a  sacred  public  institution,  and  to  prohibit 
conduct  as  would  tend  to  desecrate  it,  and  also  to 
prohibit  counter  attractions  that  would  tend  to  de- 
tract from  its  religious  observance.  So  long  as  such 
laws  do  not  coerce  the  conscience  or  compel  religious 
worship,  they  do  no  violence  to  religious  liberty. 
And  as  regards  civil  liberty,  it  must  be  remembered 
that  civil  liberty  does  not  mean  that  a  person  has  a 
right  to  do  as  he  pleases  regardless  of  the  rights  of 
others.    This  would  be  anarchy. 

Civil  liberty  may  be  defined  as  the  liberty  which 
the  civil  law  grants ;  and,  where  the  civil  law  is  the 
expression  of  the  will  of  the  majority,  the  highest 
possible  degree  of  personal  liberty  is  granted  con- 
sistent with  the  rights  of  society  as  a  whole. 


392  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

Laws  against  theft,  and  other  crimes,  necessarily 
interfere  with  the  personal  liberty  of  those  who  are 
disposed  to  commit  such  crimes.  A  man  may  think 
that  he  has  the  right  to  do  as  he  pleases  on  his  own 
premises,  but  if  he  keeps  a  public  nuisance,  the  law 
interferes  with  his  personal  liberty.  He  may  think 
that  he  can  treat  as  he  pleases  an  animal  that  he  has 
bought  with  his  own  money,  but  if  he  treats  it  cruelly, 
the  law  interferes  with  his  personal  liberty.  He  may 
think  he  has  a  right  to  sell  what  he  pleases  to  those 
who  wish  to  buy,  but  if  he  sells  obscene  literature,  or 
anything  else  that  is  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of 
society,  the  law  interferes  with  his  personal  liberty. 
He  may  think  he  has  a  right  to  have  as  many  wives 
as  he  can  get  and  support,  but  here  again,  the  law 
interferes  with  his  personal  liberty.  There  is  just 
as  much  reason  to  set  up  the  personal  liberty  howl 
over  these  laws  as  over  the  laws  against  the  dese- 
cration of  the  Sabbath.  All  such  laws  are  based  on 
the  undisputed  principle,  that  a  government  has  the 
right  to  make  laws  prohibiting  that  which  it  believes 
to  be  detrimental  to  the  general  public  welfare. 

A  government  has  no  right  to  make  laws  that 
coerce  the  conscience.  Do  the  laws  against  the  dese- 
cration of  the  Sabbath  coerce  the  conscience?  Do 
men  desecrate  the  Sabbath  for  conscientious  rea- 
sons? Do  they  violate  the  dictates  of  their  con- 
science if  they  do  not  desecrate  the  Sabbath?  Then 
the  question  is,  Shall  those  who  have  no  conscien- 
tious scruples  regarding  the  Sabbath  be  allowed  to 
trample  on  the  rights  of  those  who  have?  and, 
further  than  this.  Shall  a  godless  minority  trample 
on  the  will  of  the  majority  who  believe  that  the  dese- 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  393 

cration  of  the  Sabbath  is  detrimental  to  the  best 
interests  of  society?  A  person  is  justified  in  resist- 
ing human  laws  which  he  believes  conflicts  with 
God's  laws,  on  the  ground  that  God's  laws  are  higher 
than  man's  laws. 

The  case  of  the  United  States,  perhaps,  furnishes 
the  most  perfect  test  conditions  of  the  problem  of 
Sabbath  legislation,  because  of  the  fact  that  here  the 
principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  are  applied 
to  their  utmost  limit. 

The  First  Article  of  Amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion says,  ^^  Congress  shall  make  no  law  respecting 
an  establishment  of  religion,  or  prohibiting  the  free 
exercise  thereof."  This  is  the  only  clause  in  the 
Constitution  that  in  any  way  relates  to  laws  con- 
cerning religion. 

Laws  against  the  desecration  of  the  Sabbath,  evi- 
dently do  not  interfere  with  the  free  exercise  of  reli- 
gion. The  whole  question  then  turns  on  the  expres- 
sion, ^^Eespecting  an  establishment  of  religion.'' 

From  a  literal  standpoint  the  thing  respecting  or 
concerning  which  a  law  is  made  is  the  direct  object 
of  that  law.  An  '' establishment  of  religion,"  even 
in  a  general  sense,  is  neither  the  direct  nor  the  indi- 
rect object  of  Sabbath  laws ;  but  their  sole  object  is 
the  general  welfare  of  society.  ^^To  promote  the 
general  welfare"  is  one  of  the  objects  of  the  Consti- 
tution as  stated  in  the  '^Preamble." 

A  Sabbath  law  is  in  its  religious  phase  an  acknowl- 
edgement of  God's  authority,  separately  and  inde- 
pendently of  any  religious  sect,  and  hence  is  not  of 
the  nature  of  a  law  that  has  for  its  definite  aim  the 


394:  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

establishment  of  a  particular  form  of  religious  wor- 
ship. 

The  United  States  has  always  ranked  as  one  of 
the  foremost  of  the  Christian  Nations.  Its  *^  Declara- 
tion of  Independence''  acknowledges  the  authority; 
of  God  in  four  different  places.  ' '  In  God  We  Trust ' ' 
is  its  motto  as  expressed  on  its  coin.  The  Bible  is 
its  standard  of  faith,  as  recognized  in  all  its  judicial 
courts.  And  Sabbath  laws  are  only  in  direct  accord 
with  its  already  avowed  character  as  a  God-fearing 
Christian  nation.  The  Act  of  Congress,  during 
President  Roosevelt's  administration,  legalizing  the 
motto,  ^^In  God  We  Trust,"  on  the  coin,  was,  just  as 
Sabbath  laws  are,  a  legitimate  avowal  of  the  nation's 
God-fearing  Christian  character.  Neither  law,  how- 
ever, conflicts  with  the  self-evident  meaning  of  the 
Constitution ;  for,  in  either  case,  the  character  is  not 
established  by  the  law,  but  the  law  is  established  by 
the  character. 

The  ^'general  welfare"  of  society  is  the  principle 
on  which  all  right  laws  are  based.  Therefore,  just  so 
far  as  Sabbath  laws  promote  the  ^* general  welfare" 
of  society,  they  are  right  laws,  and  hence  may  bo 
justified  on  this  principle  alone,  regardless  of  any 
religious  consideration;  and  as  thus  justified,  they 
are  not  laws  *' respecting  an  establishment  of  reli- 
gion." 

It  is  argued  that  the  demand  for  Sabbath  legis- 
lation comes  mainly  from  church  members,  and  is 
therefore  in  the  interest  of  religion. 

Because  a  Sabbath  law  may  be  in  the  interest  of 
religion  does  not  prove  that  it  is  not  also  in  the  inter- 
est of  the  state ;  and,  if  enacted  solely  in  the  interest 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION"  395 

of  the  state,  it  is  not  enacted  in  the  interest  of  reli- 
gion, and  therefore  not  a  law  *^  respecting  an  estab- 
lishment of  religion,''  for  that  is  not  the  object  re- 
specting which  it  is  enacted. 

The  law  makes  no  distinction  between  church  mem- 
bers and  non  church  members.  To  refuse  a  petition 
for  Sabbath  legislation,  merely  on  the  ground  that  it 
came  mainly  from  church  members,  would  be  to  dis- 
criminate against  them  as  citizens. 

It  is  just  as  impossible  to  ignore  the  fact  that  man 
is  a  religious  being  as  to  ignore  the  fact  that  he  is  a 
physical  being ;  and  because  the  law  provides  for  the 
^^ general  welfare''  of  his  religious  nature,  as  well 
as  of  his  physical  nature,  it  does  not  necessarily  fol- 
low that  that  law  has  for  its  object  the  establishment 
of  any  particular  phase  of  religion,  or  that  it  has  any 
direct  object  beyond  the  ^general  welfare"  of  man 
as  the  basis  of  society  and  state. 

Since  man  is  the  basis  of  society  and  state,  his 
moral  development  vitally  concerns  the  welfare  of 
the  nation ;  and  since  the  moral  influence  of  the  Sab- 
bath depends  almost  wholly  on  its  religious  observ- 
ance, it  necessarily  follows  that  the  welfare  of  the 
nation  would  be  promoted  by  enacting  laws  prohibit- 
ing counteracting  influences  to  the  religious  observ- 
ance of  the  Sabbath, — such  as  excursions,  theatres, 
base  ball,  etc., — on  that  day.  Such  laws  would  tend 
to  encourage  the  religious  observance  of  the  Sabbath 
without  coercion  of  conscience  or  compulsory  atten- 
dance on  public  worship. 

The  only  real  difficulty  involved  in  Sabbath  legis- 
lation is  occasioned  by  the  dispute  in  regard  to  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath. 


396  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

In  all  Christian  countries  the  Sunday,  or  Resur- 
rection-day, Sabbath  is  so  universally  recognized 
as  to  make  the  legal  establishment  of  any  other  day 
simply  out  of  the  question.  Yet  there  are  in  most 
of  these  countries  a  small  minority,  consisting  of 
Jews,  Seventh-day  Baptists,  and  Seventh-day  Ad- 
ventists,  who  make  the  seventh  day  of  the  week  Sab- 
bath an  essential  point  of  doctrine.  And  the  ques- 
tion arises.  Is  it  possible  to  make  adequate  Sunday 
Sabbath  laws  without  violating  the  religious  liberty 
of  these  sects? 

Sunday  laws  do  not  compel  labor  on  other  days 
and  therefore  do  not  prevent  these  sects  from  keep- 
ing Saturday  as  their  Sabbath,  nor  in  any  way  from 
worshipping  according  to  the  dictates  of  their  own 
consciences, — and  this  is  all  that  is  strictly  involved 
in  the  principle  of  religious  liberty.  Hence  they  can- 
not truthfully  argue  that  Sunday  laws  violate  the 
principle  of  religious  liberty  so  long  as  such  laws  do 
not  compel  worship  on  Sunday. 

Here  the  question  arises.  Should  the  adherents  of 
these  sects  be  required  not  to  w^ork  on  Sunday?  This 
is  a  question  of  civil,  rather  than  of  religious  liberty ; 
and  civil  liberty  may  be  defined  as  that  degree  of 
personal  liberty  which  is  consistent  with  the  *^  gen- 
eral welfare^'  of  society  as  a  whole,  and  is  therefore 
justly  regulated  by  the  civil  law.  Personal  liberty 
is  license  when  it  becomes  injurious  to  the  **  general 
welfare''  of  society;  and  it  is  the  majority,  not  the 
minority,  that  has  the  right  to  judge  what  is  or  is 
not  for  the  *^ general  welfare''  of  society. 

Therefore,  in  so  far  as  Sunday  transaction  of  busi- 
ness by  the  Saturday  Sabbath  observers  is  adjudged 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  397 

by  the  majority  of  citizens  to  be  detrimental  to  the 
**  general  welfare  ^^  of  society,  it  may  be  legally  pro- 
hibited without  violating  any  principle  of  civil  or 
religious  liberty. 

Adventists  and  S.  D.  Baptists  teach  that  the  Sun- 
day Sabbath  is  the  *^mark  of  the  beasf  (Revelation 
13),  and  therefore  make  it  a  point  to  dishonor  the  day 
as  much  as  possible.  Many  of  them  believe  that  it  is 
their  religious  duty  to  work  on  Sunday,  as  otherwise 
they  would  be  branded  with  the  *^mark  of  the 
beast. ' '  But  they  certainly  could  do  enough  work  on 
Sunday  to  satisfy  their  consciences  without  flaunt- 
ingly  disregarding  the  rights  of  others  who  do  not 
believe  as  they  do.  It  is  evident  that  their  direct 
objection  to  Sunday  legislation  is  the  fact  that  they 
believe  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  the  ^^mark  of  the 
beast, ' '  and  that  Saturday  is  the  only  true  Sabbath. 

They  need,  however,  to  prove  a  long  line  of  sheer 
assumptions  (as  we  have  shown  in  preceding  chap- 
ters) in  order  to  clear  the  way  f  .r  their  Sunday 
*'mark  of  the  beast"  doctrine. 

Legislation  in  regard  to  the  Sabbath  as  an  institu- 
tion, is  justified  on  the  ground  of  the  *^  general  wel- 
fare," both  of  the  individual  and  of  society,  inde- 
pendently of  any  religious  consideration  beyond  the 
general  recognition  of  man's  religious  nature; 
which  recognition  is  justified  in  the  fact. 

But  it  is  also  essential  to  the  value  of  the  Sabbath, 
as  an  institution,  that  all  keep  the  same  day  so  far 
as  possible ;  and  hence  the  day  of  the  Sabbath  is  nec- 
essarily involved  in  Sabbath  legislation.  And  it  is 
manifestly  inevitable  that  the  legal  day  of  the  Sab- 
bath will  be  fixed  by  the  general  religious  character 


398  SABBATH     THEOLOGY 

of  the  nation  as  a  wliole^ — if  Jewish,  it  will  be  Satur- 
day ;  if  Moliammedan,  it  will  be  Friday ;  if  Christian, 
it  will  be  Sunday. 

There  is  no  denying  the  fact  that  Sunday  is  the 
generally  recognized  day  of  the  Sabbath  in  all  Chris- 
tian countries.  The  right  to  legislate  in  regard  to  the 
Sabbath,  as  an  institution,  necessarily  carries  with 
it  also  the  right  to  ^x  the  day, — for  the  fixed  day  ele- 
ment is  an  economic  necessity,  as  all  will  admit, — and 
the  indisputable  principle,  that  whatever  vitally  con- 
cerns the  welfare  of  the  state  comes  within  the  legiti- 
mate range  of  its  legislative  authority,  covers  the 
entire  case. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  enforcement  of  Sundav 
laws  leads  to  religious  persecution  in  the  case  of 
Adventists  and  others  who  keep  Saturday  as  the 
Sabbath.  Just  as  well  claim  that  the  enforcement 
of  the  law  against  polygamy  leads  to  religious  perse- 
cution in  the  case  of  the  Mormons. 

Those  who  keep  the  Saturday  Sabbath  do  so  vol- 
untarily for  conscience  sake,  and  hence  all  loss  there- 
from is  voluntary  sacrifice  for  conscience  sake,  and 
thus  the  religious  phase  of  the  persecution  is  self- 
inflicted. 

Adventists  say,  ''The  State  has  no  right  to  inflict 
upon  any  citizen  a  fine  of  one-seventh  of  his  time 
as  a  penalty  for  living  up  to  his  religious  convic- 
tions.'' This  is  a  truth,  but — misapplied.  The  one- 
seventh  of  time  that  is  sacrificed  to  their  religious 
convictions  is  Saturday,  not  Sunday;  and  hence  the 
fine  is  self-inflicted  for  conscience  sake.  They  have 
no  legal  claim,  therefore,  to  ])e  reimbursed  on  Sun- 
day for  their  own  voluntary  self-inflicted  fine. 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  399 

Again  tliey  say,  ^^It  is  not  within  the  province  of 
the  State  to  compel  the  citizens  either  to  rest  or 
labor,  except  as  a  punishment  for  crime. '^  This  is 
only  a  half-truth.  Christ  said,  ^'The  Sabbath  was 
made  for  man,''  therefore  it  is  man's  inherent  right; 
and  it  is  within  the  province  of  the  state  to  protect 
him  in  that  right  from  unscrupulous  employers  who 
w^ould  rob  him  of  it. 

Again  they  say,  ^'In  matters  of  faith  the  majority 
has  no  power  over  the  minority.  The  conscience  of  a 
single  individual  is  as  sacred  as  that  of  a  whole 
community. ' '  This  is  another  truth  misapplied, — in 
the  fact  that  Sunday  laws  do  not  coerce  the  con- 
science of  a  single  individual  in  compelling  his  reli- 
gious observance  of  the  day  or  interfering  with  his 
religious  observance  of  any  other  day.  There  is  a 
marked  distinction  between  a  law  prohibiting  the 
public  desecration  of  the  Sabbath,  and  a  law  com- 
pelling the  religious  observance  of  it.  The  power 
of  the  majority  over  the  minority  is  not  in  matters 
of  faith,  but  in  matters  of  political  economy.  That 
the  day  of  the  Sabbath  is  a  matter  of  political  econ- 
omy is  seen  in  the  fact  that  for  the  institution  of  the 
Sabbath  to  be  of  any  practical  value  to  the  state,  the 
day  must  be  practically  uniform ;  and  as  long  as  the 
day  is  under  dispute,  even  as  a  matter  of  faith,  the 
question  can  only  be  justly  decided  by  the  majority 
rule,  on  the  ground  of  its  economic  bearing  on  the 
'^general  welfare"  of  society  and  State. 

Since  in  matters  of  faith  the  majority  has  no  pow- 
er over  the  minority,  therefore,  the  question  of  the 
day  of  the  Sabbath,  as  a  matter  of  faith,  stands 
equally  balanced;  and  since  it  is  thus  equally  bal- 


400  SABBATH      THEOLOGY 

anced,  this  pliase  of  the  question  can  have  no  weight 
either  way  on  the  question  as  a  matter  of  political 
economy.  So  the  whole  question  of  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath,  if  decided  at  all,  must  be  decided  from  the 
standpoint  of  political  economy ;  and  all  questions  of 
political  economy  come  under  the  majority  rule. 

The  question  of  the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  as  a  matter 
of  political  economy,  is  necessarily  involved  in  the 
other  question  of  Sabbath  legislation ;  and  this  leads 
back  to  the  foundation  principle,  that  whatever  vi- 
tally concerns  the  welfare  of  the  state  comes  within 
the  legitimate  range  of  its  legislative  authority. 
This  principle  is  of  the  nature  of  an  axiom,  or  self- 
evident  truth,  which  cannot  be  disputed;  and  thus 
the  whole  question  rests  on  this  indisputable  founda- 
tion, as  already  shown. 

Again,  it  is  claimed  that  the  enforcement  of  Sun- 
day laws  is  the  first  step  toward  union  of  Church  and 
State. 

In  attempting"  to  avoid  any  evil,  there  is  a  natural 
tendency  to  go  to  the  opposite  extreme;  so,  in  at- 
tempting to  avoid  the  evil  of  union  of  Church  and 
State,  there  is  a  strong  tendency  to  go  to  an  equally 
dangerous  opposite  extreme  and  ignore  man's  reli- 
gious nature  altogether  in  the  enactment  of  laws; 
whereas,  if  man  has  a  religious  nature,  as  well  as  a 
physical  nature,  there  is  no '  reason  why  the  law 
should  not  recognize  one  fact  as  well  as  the  other,  so 
far  as  either  concerns  the  welfare  of  the  state. 
There  is  certainly  a  true  line  running  through  this 
question ;  and  to  err  on  one  side  of  the  line  is  as  di- 
sastrous to  the  welfare  of  society  as  to  err  on  the 
other. 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  401 

From  an  Adventist  leaflet  entitled,  ^^The  Church 
and  the  State/'  we  quote,  *^The  Church  and  the 
State  are  two  institutions  ordained  of  God.''  *^The 
Church  is  God 's  life-saving  agency  in  the  world ;  and 
the  State  is  His  law  and  order  society. ' ' 

Now  if  the  State  is  an  institution  ordained  of  God, 
there  is  certainly  no  good  reason  why  it  should  not 
formally  recognize  the  authority  of  Him  who  or- 
dained it.  If  the  State  is  God's  law  and  order 
society,  then  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  to  preface  the  ^^  Pre- 
amble ' '  with  the  words  ^  ^  In  the  name  of  God, ' '  would 
be  only  a  mere  recognition  of  the  fact  which  Adven- 
tists  themselves  acknowledge. 

But  Adventists  say  that  these  five  words,  if  pre- 
faced to  the  Constitution,  contain  the  germ  of  all  the 
evils  of  a  union  of  Chruch  and  State.  Thus  they 
either  contradict  their  own  statement., — that  *Hhe 
State  is  God's  law  and  order  society," — or  else 
they  practically  assert  that  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  truth  contains  the  germ  of  all  the  evils  of  a 
union  of  Church  and  State.  If  the  Church  and  the 
State  are  both  ordained  of  God,  why  should  not  the 
fact  be  acknowledged  by  one  as  well  as  by  the  other? 

Separation  of  Church  and  State  consists  in  con- 
fining each  to  its  own  proper,  separate  and  distinct 
sphere.  The  recognition  and  acknowledgment  of 
God's  authority  by  the  State  does  not  interfere  with 
its  recognizing  the  separate  and  distinct  sphere  as- 
signed to  it  by  God.  Hence  a  rightful  acknowledg- 
ment of  God  by  the  State  has  no  bearing  on  the  ques- 
tion of  ^  ^  Separation  of  Church  and  State. ' '  All  reli- 
gions are  a  recognition  of  man 's  religious  nature  and 


402  SABBATH   THEOLOGT 

the  authority  of  a  superior  being  which  may  be 
called  God, — though  there  can  be  but  one  living  and 
true  God.  Therefore  a  recognition  of  God's  au- 
thority and  of  man's  religious  nature  underlies  all 
questions  of  religious  liberty. 

The  question  of  '*  Separation  of  Church  and 
State"  necessarily  recognizes  both  Church  and 
State.  There  can  be  no  question  of  religious  liberty 
with  religion  abolished,  nor  a  question  of  '^Separa- 
tion of  Church  and  State"  with  the  Church  abol- 
ished. When  the  question  of  religious  liberty  is 
pushed  beyond  its  proper  limits,  it  ceases  to  be  a 
question  of  religious  liberty,  and  becomes  a  question 
of  religion  or  no  religion ;  and  when  the  question  of 
separation  of  Church  and  State  is  pushed  beyond  its 
proper  limits,  it  ceases  to  be  a  question  of  separation 
of  Church  and  State,  and  becomes  a  question  of 
Church  or  no  Church. 

We  have  a  fair  example  of  the  legitimate  result 
of  no  religion  and  no  Church  in  the  ^'Eeign  of 
Terror"  in  France.  Yet  the  advocates  of  ''No  reli- 
gion; no  Church,"  pose  as  the  champions  of  "Eeli- 
gious  Liberty"  and  "Separation  of  Church  and 
State"  while  in  reality  they  are  the  most  dangerous 
enemies  of  both. 

Satan  poses  as  an  "angel  of  light."  In  his  fight 
against  true  religion  and  the  Church  of  God  he  is 
very  careful  not  to  raise  the  infidel  banner, ' '  No  reli- 
gion; no  Church,"  but  instead,  raises  the  banner  of 
"Religious  Liberty"  and  "Separation  of  Church 
and  State." 

It  is  very  important,  therefore,  to  draw  the  true 
line  running  through  the  question  of  "  Separation 


S.iBBATH  LEGISLATION  403 

of  Churcli  and  State/'  and  to  recognize  the  fact  that 
there  is  a  line  where  the  question  of  religious  liberty 
ceases  to  be  a  question  of  religious  liberty,  and  the 
question  of  separation  of  Church  and  State  ceases  to 
be  a  question  of  separation  of  Church  and  State ;  and 
that,  in  crossing  the  line,  these  questions  change  into 
the  questions,  Religion  or  no  Religion?  Church  or 
no  Church? 

A  danger  signal  needs  to  be  raised  at  this  point, 
for  so  many  good  and  honest  people,  in  their  great 
fear  of  union  of  Church  and  State,  fail  to  recognize 
the  equal  danger  in  the  opposite  extreme,  and  imag- 
ine that  the  slightest  recognition  of  God  or  religion 
by  the  State  contains  the  germ  (as  Adventists  say) 
of  all  the  evils  of  union  of  Church  and  State. 

The  questions.  Religion  or  no  Religion?  Church 
or  no  Church?  God  or  no  God?  must  be  met  and 
decided  before  there  can  be  any  question  of  religious 
liberty  or  separation  of  Church  and  State.  For 
the  question  of  ^^ Religious  Liberty''  is  a  recogni- 
tion of  religion,  and  the  question  of  *^  Separation  of 
Church  and  State"  is  a  recognition  of  both  Church 
and  State.  There  can  be  no  recognized  separation 
without  a  recognition  of  the  things  separated;  for 
things  that  have  no  recognized  existence  can  have 
no  recognized  separation.  There  can  therefore  be 
no  recognition  of  the  principle  of  separation  of 
Church  and  State  without  the  recognition  of  the 
Church  by  the  State,  and  of  the  State  by  the  Church ; 
each  duly  recognizing  the  true  sphere  of  the  other. 
A  recognition  of  the  Church  by  the  State  is  a  recog- 
nition of  religion,  and  a  recognition  of  religion  is  a 
recognition  of  God;  and  the  only  God  that  can  be 


404:  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

recognized  by  an  enlightened  civilized  nation  is  the 
one  only  living  and  true  God,  to  recognize  whom,  as 
the  Creator  of  the  universe,  is  to  recognize  His  su- 
preme authority,  the  acknowledgment  of  which,  by 
every  civilized  state  that  recognizes  the  fact,  is  God 's 
rightful  due. 

It  is  an  indusputable  fact,  that  the  highest  degree 
of  religious  liberty  exists  in  the  Protestant  Christian 
countries.  And  also  that  the  reverse  is  true  where 
Infidelity  and  Atheism  rule, — as  during  the  *^  Reign 
of  Terror''  in  France, — and  in  some  Catholic  coun- 
tries where  the  Bible  is  shut  to  all  but  the  priests, 
and  in  heathen  countries  where  the  Bible  is  unknown. 

These  facts  prove  that  the  greatest  safeguard  to 
religious  liberty  is  the  free  and  open  Bible.  No 
harm  can  possibly  come  to  the  cause  of  religious 
liberty  from  that  which  is  its  greatest  safeguard. 
The  teachings  of  the  Bible,  not  as  interpreted  by 
fallible  man,  but  as  interpreted  by  Christ,  can  never 
be  detrimental  to  religious  liberty.  The  principles 
of  love,  sacrifice,  and  unselfishness  exemplified  by 
Christ;  and  the  principles  of  man's  free  moral 
agency  and  liberty  of  conscience  recognized  by 
Christ;  and  the  principles  of  moral  persuasion  em- 
ployed by  Christ, — are  the  very  foundation  prin- 
ciples of  religious  liberty,  and  have  their  origin  only 
in  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  The  spirit  of  persecution  is 
contrary  to  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 

Adventists  point  to  the  Papacy  as  warning  of  the 
evils  of  a  union  of  Church  and  State.  But  we  must 
remember  that  it  was  not  the  result  of  a  free  open 
Bible,  but  of  the  repression  of  the  Bible.  If  Papacy 
is  a  warning  on  one  hand,  the  ^' Reign  of  Terror"  in 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  405 

France  should  be  a  warning'  on  the  other.  The  evil 
is  not  to  be  escaped  by  fleeing  from  Papacy  into  the 
arms  of  Infidelity  and  Atheism. 

Infidelity  and  Atheism  are  the  avowed  enemies  of 
all  religions,  especially  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  hence  of  the  principles  of  religious  liberty, 
which  Christianity  alone  stands  for.  Before  they 
pose  as  the  champions  of  religious  liberty,  let  them 
blot  out,  if  they  can,  the  testimony  of  the  *^Eeign  of 
Terror''  in  France. 

History  testifies  that  whatever  of  religious  liberty 
has  been  gained  in  any  country  is  due  wholly  to  Pro- 
testant Christianity,  which  stands  for  the  free  open 
Bible.  The  more  enlightened  the  masses  of  the 
people  in  regard  to  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  the 
more  secure  is  the  cause  of  religious  liberty;  and  the 
chief  means  to  this  end  is  the  Sabbath,  with  its  pulpit 
instruction.  The  more  the  true  spirit  of  Protestant 
Christianity  pervades  the  legislative  halls,  the  less 
there  is  to  fear  for  the  cause  of  religious  liberty. 
The  only  real  causes  for  fear  are  the  influences  of 
Catholicism  and  of  Infidelity;  and  perhaps  the 
greater  danger  is  in  the  latter,  in  the  very  reaction 
from  the  former. 

The  statement  in  the  Treaty  with  Tripoli  in  1797, 
that  ^  ^  The  government  of  the  United  States  is  not  in 
any  sense  founded  on  the  Christian  religion, ' '  is  not 
true.  It  was  penned  by  the  spirit  of  Infidelity.  If 
we  could  conceive  of  every  principle  and  influence  of 
Christianity  withdrawn  from  the  foundation  under- 
neath the  United  States  government,  the  falsity  of 
the  statement  would  be  apparent. 

The  United  States  has  always  been  recognized  as 


406  SABBATH  THEOLOGY  ^ 

one  of  the  foremost  of  the  Protestant  Christian  na- 
tions. The  character  of  the  nation  is  the  real  foun- 
dation of  the  government.  This  fact  would  be  very 
quickly  demonstrated  if  either  the  Catholic  Church 
or  Infidelity  and  Atheism  gained  complete  control. 
Hence  the  only  safety  for  the  cause  of  religious  lib- 
ery  depends  on  Protestant  Christianity  being  sus- 
tained. 

It  is  evident  that  Protestant  Christianity  cannot 
be  sustained  by  religious  persecution  or  coercion  of 
conscience;  for  these  methods  are  directly  opposed 
to  the  essential  principles  of  Protestant  Christianity. 
And  any  such  methods,  though  in  the  name  of  Pro- 
testant Christianity,  would  not  aid,  but  hinder,  the 
true  advance  of  Protestant  Christianity;  and  herein 
lies  the  security  of  the  cause  of  religious  liberty,  so 
long  as  the  true  standard  (the  free  open  Bible)  of 
Protestant  Christianity,  is  sustained. 

Union  of  Infidelity  and  State  (as  in  the  ^^ Reign  of 
Terror''  in  France)  would  certainly  be  as  great  an 
evil  as  the  union  of  Church  and  State,  and  therefore 
the  principle  of  separation  is  just  as  applicable  in 
one  case  as  the  other. 

Church.  State.     |     Infidelity.  State. 

Theism  (God).  \       Atheism  (No  God). 

Theism  is  involved  in  the  question  of  ^  ^  Separation 
of  Church  and  State"  just  as  Atheism  would  be  in- 
volved if  the  question  were  a  ^'Separation  of  Infi- 
delity and  State."  But  the  question  before  us  is  the 
former,  not  the  latter.  Therefore  the  State,  as  it 
relates  to  the  question  before  us  (Separation  of 
Church  and  State),  stands  on  theistic,  not  atheistic, 


Theism  (God) 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  407 

ground,  and  the  principle  of  separation  must  be 
applied  between  Theism  and  Atheism  before  it  can 
be  applied  between  Church  and  State. 

State — God^s  law  and  order  society. 
Church — God^s  life-saving  agency. 

The  above  definitions  of  Church  and  State  (given 
by  Adventists  themselves)  clearly  define  the  proper 
sphere  of  each  combined  with  the  acknowledgment  of 
God's  authority  in  each  case;  and  it  is  evident,  the 
acknowledgment  of  God's  authority  in  each  case  does 
not  lessen  the  separate  and  distinct  character  of  each. 
Preserving  the  separate  and  distinct  character  of 
each  is  all  that  is  involved  in  the  question  of  ^  ^  Sepa- 
ration of  Church  and  State. ' '  Hence  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  God's  authority  by  the  State  is  not  goin^  be- 
yond the  proper  sphere  of  the  State. 

God  either  is  or  is  not ;  and  that  He  is  the  Creator 
of  the  universe  either  is  or  is  not  a  fact.  If  it  is  a 
fact,  then  the  acknowledgment  of  the  fact  is  God's 
rightful  due  from  the  State  as  well  as  from  the 
Church.  On  what  consistent  ground  can  Adventists 
or  others  hold  that  this  acknowledgment  is  due  from 
one  and  not  from  the  other,  if,  as  they  claim,  one  is  an 
institution  of  God  as  well  as  the  other?  To  be  con- 
sistent, they  must  withdraw  the  claim  that  the  State 
is  ^^ God's  law  and  order  society." 

If,  as  a  whole,  the  true  character  of  a  nation  is 
theistic,  then  the  acknowledgment  of  the  authority 
of  God  by  the  State  is  only  in  harmony  with  the  true 
character  of  the  nation;  and  a  refusal  to  acknowl- 
edge the  authority  of  God,  after  the  issue  has  been 
drawn,  is  a  definite  surrender  of  the  point  to  Infi- 


408  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

delity  and  Atlieism,  and  a  denial  of  the  true*  cliar act er 
of  tlie  nation. 

The  question, '  ^  God  or  no  God  f  ^  is  a  vital  question 
which,  in  its  very  nature,  cannot  admit  of  a  neutral 
decision,  and  hence  there  is  no  neutral  ground  on* 
which  the  State  can  stand;  for  when  the  issue  is 
drawn,  it  must  either  acknowledge  God's  authority, 
or,  in  refusing,  deny  His  authority.  The  general 
character  of  the  State  as  a  whole  determines  its  as- 
sumed position  on  the  question  since  there  can  be  no 
neutral  position.  But  when  this  assumed  position  is 
brought  to  an  issue,  it  becomes  a  political  question, 
which  must  necessarily  be  decided  by  the  majority 
rule. 

Remember  that  this  is  not  a  question  of  ^^  Religious 
Liberty '*  or  of  ^^ Separation  of  Church  and  State;'' 
for  these  questions  necessarily  involve  the  existence 
of  God.  The  question,  *^God  or  no  God  I",  is  the  one 
fundamental  question  which  draws  the  line  between 
conscience  on  the  one  hand,  and  license  on  the  other. 
With  Theists,  it  is  a  question  of  conscience;  with 
Atheists,  a  question  of  license.  Atheists  have  no 
right  to  take  refuge,  as  they  do,  behind  the  principles 
of  religious  liberty,  freedom  of  conscience,  and  sepa- 
ration of  Church  and  State  when  they  deny  the  fact 
(the  existence  of  God)  upon  which  these  principles 
are  based. 

It  is  a  natural  tendency  of  human  nature,  in  at- 
tempting to  remedy  an  evil,  to  go  to  the  opposite  ex- 
treme; and  Satan  never  fails  to  take  advantage  of 
this  fact  in  his  opposition  to  reform,  as  the  history 
of  past  reforms  testify.    Hence  we  can  be  sure  that 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  409 

the  present  '^Religious  Liberty"  reform  is  no  excep- 
tion. 

As  soon  as  Satan  recognizes  liis  inability  to  with- 
stand the  reform  by  direct  opposition,  he  immedi- 
ately disguises  himself  as  a  friend  of  the  reform,  in 
order  to  thwart  God's  purpose  in  the  reform  by  car- 
rying it  to  the  opposite  extreme;  and  the  opposite 
extreme  in  the  present  case  is  evidently  atheism. 

Thus,  by  posing  as  the  champion  of  religious  lib- 
erty and  pointing  to  the  Papacy  as  a  warning,  he  at- 
tempts to  blind  people  into  believing  that  the  slight- 
est recognition  of  the  authority  of  God  by  the  State 
is  the  germ  that  will  inevitably  lead  to  religious  op- 
pression :  whereas  the  authority  of  God  is  the  foun- 
dation of  religious  liberty,  and  the  free  open  Bible  is 
its  safeguard;  and  the  danger  is  not  in  the  State 
recognizing  the  fact,  but  in  its  ignoring  the  fact. 

Mrs.  E.  G.  White,  the  Adventist  leader,  says,  ''The 
spirit  of  liberty  went  with  the  Bible. ' '  Again, ' '  True 
freedom  lies  within  the  proscriptions  of  the  law  of 
God.''  (The  Great  Controversy,  pp.  277,  285.) 
Then  how  can  these  truths,  recognized  by  the  state, 
become  the  germ  of  religious  oppression  ?  We  must 
bear  in  mind  that  it  was  the  suppression  of  the  Bible, 
and  never  the  free  open  Bible,  that  has  resulted  in 
religious  oppression.  An  acknowledgment  of  God's 
authority  necessarily  involves  a  recognition  of  God's 
law  as  the  basis  of  all  law. 

Mr.  J.  N.  Andrews  (Adventist)  says,  ''God  gave 
to  man  the  institution  of  marriage"  (The  Sabbath 
and  the  Laiv,  j).  145) ;  also,  "God  gave  to  man  the 
Sabbath"  (p.  143),  "Here  is  a  divine  institution" 
(p.  147).    Therefore  marriage  and  the  Sabbath  are 


f'JD  SABBATH  :.THEOLOGY 

both  divine  institutions ;  and  one  is  no  more  a  divine 
.institution  than  the  other.  If  Sabbath  laws  are  reli- 
gious laws  because  the  Sabbath  was  ordained  of 
God  and  therefore  a  religious  institution,  then  laws 
relating  to  marriage  and  divorce  are  also  religious 
laws  for  the  same  reason. 

If  all  the  Adventists'  arguments  against  Sabbath 
laws,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  religious  laws, 
and  the  state  has  no  right  to  pass  religious  laws, 
were  applied  to  marriage  instead  of  the  Sabbath, 
they  would  be  contradicted  by  Adventists  them- 
selves; which  proves  that  their  arguments,  though 
apparently  plausible,  are  only  sophistry.  Mormons 
have  just  as  much  reason  for  opposing  laws  against 
polygamy,  on  the  ground  that  they  are  religious  laws, 
as  Adventists  have  for  opposing  Sabbath  laws  on 
the  ground  that  they  are  religious  laws.  Both 
marriage  and  Sabbath  institutions  vitally  concern 
the  physical,  intellectual,  social,  and  moral  wel- 
fare of  man;  and  since  man  is  the  basis  of  Society 
and  State,  what  vitally  concerns  his  welfare,  vitally 
concerns  the  welfare  of  the  State ;  and  this  alone  is 
sufficient  ground  for  legislation  in  each  case,  without 
any  religious  consideration. 

Yet  the  religious  consideration  cannot  well  be  ig- 
nored, even  in  the  eyes  of  the  law;  for  the  moral 
value  of  both  institutions  is  due  to  their  religious  or 
sacred  nature  as  divine  institutions;  and  the  moral 
value  is  a  very  important  element  of  value  to  the 
State,  and  the  State  cannot  ignore  the  fact  without 
ignoring  its  own  interest.  Hence  to  maintain  the 
sacred  character  of  these  institutions,  by  prohibiting 
whatever  tends  to  defeat  the  purpose  for  which  they 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  411 

were  ordained,  is  the  duty  of  the  State,  even  from 
the  standpoint  of  political  economy. 

The  fact  that  Adventists  oppose  Sabbath  laws,  and 
not  marriage  laws,  makes  it  evident  that  religious 
liberty  is  not  the  real  ground  of  their  opposition  to 
Sabbath  laws,  and  that  the  real  ground  is  the  fact 
that  such  laws  are  Sunday  Sabbath  laws,  and  thus 
do  not  accord  with  their  views  in  regard  to  the  day 
of  the  Sabbath.  If  they  were  polygamists,  like  the 
Mormons,  they  would,  no  doubt,  still  pose  as  the 
champions  of  religious  liberty,  and  oppose  both  mar- 
riage and  Sabbath  laws  on  the  ground  that  such  laws 
involved  religious  persecution.  They  do  not  oppose 
laws  against  polygamy  simply  because  such  laws  are 
in  accord  with  their  views.  Hence  we  have  good 
reason  to  believe,  in  spite  of  their  denial,  that  they 
would  not  oppose  Sabbath  laws  if  such  laws  were  in 
accord  with  their  views  regarding  the  day  of  the 
Sabbath. 

Sunday  laws  do  not  compel  Adventists  or  any  one 
else  to  acknowledge  Sunday  as  the  Sabbath,  but  only 
to  respect  the  rights  of  those  who  do.  Neither  do 
they  prohibit  Adventists  from  observing  Saturday 
as  their  Sabbath,  and  therefore  do  not  interfere  with 
their  worshipping  according  to  the  dictates  of  their 
own  consciences.  Hence  religious  liberty  is  in  no 
sense  interfered  with. 

Adventists  cannot  consistently  raise  the  religious 
liberty  cry  so  long  as  they  advocate  laws  against 
polygamy,  which  involves  the  persecution  of  another 
sect.  If  they  say  that  laws  against  polygamy  are 
absolutely  necessary  to  the  moral  welfare  of  society 
and  state,  v\^e  answer,  very  true :  and  so  also  are  Sab- 


412  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

bath  laws.  If  they  should  say  that  Mormonism  is  an 
unmistakable  and  abominable  evil,  which  is  not  en- 
titled to  religious  toleration,  they  would  only  license 
the  same  judgment  on  themselves  from  those  who 
regard  them  in  the  same  light — though  not  so  rankly 
offensive,  yet  for  that  reason  all  the  more  subtle  and 
dangerous  to  the  welfare  of  the  country;  for  they 
are  the  most  active  of  all  the  opponents  of  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath,  and,  doubtless,  unsettle  the  faith  of 
^ve  for  every  one  that  they  proselyte  to  their  doc- 
trine. 

The  question  of  single  or  plural  marriages  can 
only  be  settled  legally  by  the  will  of  the  majority, 
where  the  will  of  the  majority  is  the  recognized  law; 
and,  for  the  same  reason,  the  question  of  Sunday  or 
Saturday  Sabbath  can  only  be  settled  in  the  same 
way.  Adventists  acknowledge  the  right  of  the  ma- 
jority to  settle  the  marriage  question,  but  refuse  to 
acknowledge  the  right  of  the  majority  to  settle  the 
Sabbath  question;  evidently,  because  in  the  one  case 
the  decision  is  in  harmony  with  their  doctrine,  while 
in  the  other  it  is  not :  but  the  majority  have  the  same 
right  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other. 

The  persecution  argument,  that  Sunday  laws  de- 
prive persons  of  the  labor  of  one  day  in  seven,  is 
just  as  applicable  in  the  case  of  those  who  object  to 
keeping  any  Sabbath,  as  in  the  case  of  those  who 
keep  the  Saturday  Sabbath;  for  keeping  the  Satur- 
day Sabbath  is  voluntary  on  the  part  of  those  who 
keep  it,  and  therefore  has  no  bearing  on  the  question, 
and  hence  the  enforcement  of  Sunday  laws  is  as  just 
in  one  case  as  in  the  other,  and  is  not  a  religious  per- 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  413 

secution  of  a  sect  because  of  their  conscientious  ob- 
servance of  another  day. 

To  exempt  those  who  keep  the  Saturday  Sabbath 
from  keeping  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  to  discriminate 
between  two  classes  purely  on  the  basis  of  the  volun- 
tary act  of  keeping  the  Saturday  Sabbath.  Those 
who  would  keep  no  Sabbath  could  legitimately  pro- 
test on  the  ground  that  a  voluntary  act  entitles  no 
one  to  legal  privileges. 

All  the  persecution  that  Adventists  suffer,  more 
than  other  objectors,  is  due  to  their  own  voluntary 
act  in  keeping  the  Saturday  Sabbath,  which,  if  they 
do  for  conscience  sake,  they  should  be  willing  to 
accept  the  necessary  privation  resulting  therefrom 
without  putting  the  blame  where  it  does  not  belong, 
and  without  demanding  damages  at  the  expense  of 
the  ** general  welfare''  of  society. 

When  they  defiantly  disregard  Sunday  laws  to 
show  their  contempt  for  Sunday  as  the  **mark  of 
the  beast,''  and  of  Sunday  laws  as  the  mandates  of 
the  beast,  thus  not  only  violating  the  laws  of  the 
country,  but  insulting  the  nation,  and  treating  with 
contempt  the  religious  convictions  of  others,  they 
certainly  are  not  entitled  to  any  more  consideration 
than  other  violators  of  the  law.  However,  their  hon- 
esty and  sincerity,  which  cannot  be  questioned,  calls 
for  all  the  leniency  possible. 

All  enforcement  of  law  (Sunday  law  no  more  than 
others)  is  a  persecution  tt)  those  against  whom  it 
operates;  for  example,  the  enforcement  of  laws 
against  polygamy,  sale  of  obscene  literature,  nuis- 
ances, cruelty  to  animals,  theft,  murder,  etc.,  which, 
so  far  as  the  moral  law  is  involved,  might  be  classed 


414  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

as  religious  persecution.  Hence  the  persecution 
argument  if  carried  to  its  ultimatum  would  abolish 
all  law. 

Adventists  claim  to  be  the  most  law  abiding  people 
on  earth,  but  any  deference  to  Sunday  laws  is,  to 
them,  a  recognition  of  the  authority  of  the  beast. 
Otherwise,  by  a  little  application  of  the  law-abiding 
spirit,  they  could  utilize  Sunday  to  intellectual  devel- 
opment, and  in  manj  private  ways,  for  it  is  not  their 
private  acts,  but  only  their  flaunting,  defiant  public 
desecration  of  the  Sunday  Sabbath,  that  antagon- 
izes the  law. 

Thus  the  real  privation  involved  in  the  Sunday 
Sabbath  to  Adventists  could  be  reduced  to  a  very 
small  minimum  if  they  were  so  disposed,  but  this 
would  minimize  their  religious  martyrdom;  so,  in 
order  to  pose  as  religious  martyrs  they  must  make 
the  best  showing  possible  from  magnified  Sunday 
persecution,  for  this  is  their  sole  capital.  But  self- 
sought  martyrdom  is  not  the  genuine  article.  If 
persecution  is  a  mark  of  God's  saints,  then  the  Mor- 
mons have  much  the  best  claim  to  the  title. 

Apparently,  Adventists  are  almost  impatiently  ex- 
pecting the  IJnited  States  (as  the  Beast  of  Kevela- 
tion  13)  to  enact,  according  to  prophecy,  a  law  en- 
forcing the  observance  of  Sunday  (the  **mark  of 
the  Beast''),  and  imprisoning  and  putting  to  death 
all  who  will  not  receive  the  **mark  of  the  beast" 
by  observing  Sunday. 

All  this  must  come  to  pass,  according  to  their  in- 
terpretation of  prophecy,  before  the  end  of  the 
world;  and  the  end  of  the  world  must  be  in  ^Hhis 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  415 

generation'^ — the  generation  which  saw  the  falling 
of  the  stars  in  1833,  the  last  sign  given  by  Christ 
(Matt.  24  :  29).  All  the  Protestant  churches  are  to 
be  united  into  a  Protestant  Catholic  Church,  and,  by 
union  of  Church  and  State,  all  the  persecutions  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  are  to  be  paralleled  and 
crowded  into  the  few  remaining  years  of  *  ^  this  gen- 
eration''  of  those  who  saw  the  stars  fall  nearly 
eighty  years  ago. 

This  doctrine  was,  till  recently,  if  not  still,  gen- 
erally taught,  and  to  modify  it  now,  in  view  of  its 
practical  impossibility,  would  be  an  acknowledgment 
of  the  unreliable  character  of  all  their  interpreta- 
tions of  prophecy. 

It  is  practically  certain,  therefore,  that  Adventists 
would  hail  with  almost  fanatical  joy  the  enact- 
ment of  a  Sunday  law  by  the  United  States  as  a 
vindication  of  their  interpretation  of  prophecy ;  and 
that  they  oppose  Sunday  legislation  only  because  it 
devolves  on  them  to  pose  as  the  defenders  of  the 
faith.  The  present  movement  toward  union  among 
the  Protestant  churches  is  therefore  regarded  by 
Adventists  as  the  beginning  of  the  end,  to  be  quickly 
followed  by  union  of  Church  and  State,  and  religious 
persecution  in  the  enforcement  of  Sunday  laws. 

Duty  is  determined  by  precept,  not  prophecy.  God 
can  take  care  of  prophecy  without  man's  counsel  to 
hasten  or  hinder.  Duty  cannot  be  evaded  by  evading 
the  fulfilment  of  prophecy. 

If  the  principle  of  unity  was  clearly  taught  by 
Christ  (John  17  :  11,20-23)  and  His  apostles  (1  Cor. 
1  :  10;  1  Cor.  12  :  25;  Phil.  1  :  27;  Phil.  2  :  3;  Eom. 
15  ;  5,6),  then  the  union  of  churches,  so  far  as  pos- 


41^  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

sible,  without  sacrifice  of  principle,  is  in  accordance 
with  the  teachings  of  Christ  and  of  the  apostles ;  and 
no  interpretation  of  prophecy  can  reverse  the  fact, 
nor  would  the  fact  be  reversed  even  if  it  were  a  ful- 
filment of  prophecy. 

In  Isa.  52  :  8,  it  is  prophecied,  '^They  shall  see 
eye  to  eye,  when  the  Lord  shall  bring  again  Zion.'' 
In  so  far  as  Church  union  tends  to  this  end,  it  is,  to 
that  extent,  a  fulfilment  of  this  prophecy,  and  can- 
not but  be  in  the  direction  of  God's  purpose. 

If  the  union  movement  is  of  God,  we  can  be  sure 
that  Satan  will  do  all  in  his  power  to  checkmate  it. 
If  he  can  do  this  most  effectively  by  misapplying 
the  principle  of  religious  liberty  and  affecting  a 
warning  of  religious  intolerance,  and  by  misinter- 
pretation of  prophecy,  he  would  surely  do  so ;  for  he 
is  too  experienced  a  strategist  to  fail  to  use  the  most 
effective  means. 

We  can  be  sure,  also,  that  if  he  fails  thus  to  check- 
mate the  movement,  he  will,  according  to  his  usual 
tactics,  disguise  himself  as  a  friend  of  the  reform 
and  do  all  he  can  to  thwart  God's  purpose  in  it.  And 
even  if  he  succeeded  in  perverting  it  to  the  extent  of 
religious  intolerance,  as  Adventists  predict,  it  would 
furnish  no  argument  that  the  union  movement  was 
not  of  God,  but  only  that  Satan  had  thwarted  God's 
purpose  in  it.  But  if  Satan  succeeded  in  wholly 
thwarting  God's  purpose  in  it,  he  would  prove  him- 
self mightier  than  God. 

Unless  Sunday  is  the  ''mark  of  the  beast",  in  Eev. 
13  :  16,  the  proper  enforcement  of  Sunday  laws  can 
have  nothing  to  do  with  the  fulfilment  of  that  pro- 
phecy.   The  assumption  that  Saturday  is  the  truQ 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION"  417 

Sabbath  and  Sunday  the  ^^mark  of  the  beast"  is  the 
vital  point  in  the  Advenist  interpretation  of  proph- 
ecy; but  if  (as  we  claim  to  have  shown  in  the  preced- 
ing chapters)  this  assumption  is  false,  then  all  the 
deductions  that  are  derived  from  it  are  false  also. 

Again,  we  have  clearly  shown  that  the  enactment 
and  enforcement  of  proper  Sabbath  laws,  do  not  in- 
volve the  union  of  Church  and  State,  but  that  even 
the  moral  or  religious  phase  of  the  question  only  in- 
volves a  due  recognition  by  the  State  of  the  auth- 
ority of  God  and  of  the  sacred  character  of  the  Sab- 
bath. 

The  authority  of  God,  the  sacredness  of  the  Sab- 
bath, and  the  free  moral  agency  of  man,  on  which  the 
principle  of  religious  liberty  is  based,  are  facts  that 
have  a  right  relation  to  each  other ;  and,  in  this  right 
relation,  they  do  not  conflict  but  harmonize.  From 
which  it  follows  that  a  Sabbath  law  which  duly  rec- 
ognizes each  fact  will  be  in  harmony  with  all  three; 
and  it  is  necessary  that  the  State  duly  recognize 
each  fact  in  order  to  enact  such  a  law.  Hence  a  due 
recognition  of  the  principle  of  religious  liberty  does 
not  interfere  with  a  due  recognition  of  the  authority 
of  God  and  of  the  sacredness  of  the  Sabbath. 

It  is  necessary  to  understand  Satan's  tactics  in 
order  to  successfully  checkmate  him;  and  it  is  most 
important  to  keep  in  mind  the  ultimate  end  (Athe- 
ism) toward  which  all  his  moves  on  the  chess-board 
are  made.  Adventists  might  well  consider  whether 
or  not  Adventism,  in  its  co-operation  with  Satan's 
other  agencies  in  opposing  the  enactment  and  en- 
forcement of  proper  Sabbath  laws  is  not  also  one  of 
Satan's  chessmen. 


418  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

Many  persons  deny  the  personal  existence  of  Sa- 
tan; but  this  great  world  chess-game  between  good 
and  evil  certainly  implies  the  personality  of  one  con- 
testant as  well  as  of  the  other. 

Shall  Sunday  be  a  holiday  or  a  holy  day?  The 
European  Continental  Sunday  represents  the  form- 
er; the  Anglo-American  Sunday  represents  the  lat- 
ter; and  the  vital  question  before  the  patriotic,  as 
well  as  the  God-fearing  people  of  England  and 
America,  is.  Shall  the  former  be  allowed  to  supplant 
the  latter!  as  it  is  fast  doing. 

The  European  Continental  Sunday  has  its  legiti- 
mate origin,  primarily,  in  the  doctrine  taught  by 
Luther  and  his  associates,  that  the  Sabbath  law  of 
God  was  abolished  at  the  cross,  that  the  Sunday  Sab- 
bath rests,  not  on  the  law  of  God  (this  doctrine  is 
fully  discussed  in  the  preceding  chapter),  but  on  civil 
and  religious  expediency,  that  the  only  proper  religi- 
ous incentive  to  its  observance  is  in  the  remembrance 
of  the  Eesurrection,  and  therefore  that  the  non-ob- 
servance of  the  Sabbath  was  not  a  violation  of  the 
law  of  God.  This  doctrine  would  naturally  lead,  as 
it  has,  to  a  total  disregard  for  the  sacredness  of  the 
Sabbath  as  an  institution  ordained  and  commanded 
by  God. 

The  Catholic  Sunday  has  its  origin  in  the  doctrine 
that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  rests,  not  on  the  law  of 
God,  but  on  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
which  requires  attendance  at  the  morning  services 
of  the  Church,  and  sanctions  the  devotion  of  the  re- 
mainder of  the  day  to  worldly  amusements. 

In  direct  contrast  to  both  of  these  doctrines,  the 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  419 

Anglo-American  Sunday  has  its  origin  in  the  doc- 
trine that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  rests  directly  on  the 
law  of  God  as  the  reason  for  its  every  seventh  day 
element,  and  on  the  Resurrection  as  the  reason  for 
its  fixed  day  element,  and  that  the  non-observance  of 
the  Sabbath  is  a  direct  violation  of  the  Sabbath  law 
of  God,  which  has  never  been  repealed.  This  doc- 
trine maintains  the  sacredness  of  the  Sabbath  as  an 
nstitution  ordained  and  commanded  by  God.  Com- 
paring the  Continental,  the  Catholic,  and  the  Anglo- 
American  Sunday,  it  is  easy  to  see  the  legitimate 
result  of  the  underlying  doctrines,  and  to  judge 
accordingly  of  their  truthfulness. 

The  Continental  Sunday  had  its  origin,  secon- 
darily, in  the  doctrine  of  religious  liberty  in  its  un- 
bridled sense:  ignoring  the  true  line  between  reli- 
gious liberty  and  religious  license ;  and  ignoring  the 
fact  that  Theism  and  true  religious  liberty  cannot 
be  separated ;  that  when  religious  liberty  leaves  the 
bounds  of  Theism  it  becomes  irreligious  liberty,  or 
license,  ending  in  Atheism;  that  religious  liberty 
and  God  are  on  one  side  of  the  line,  and  license  and 
no  God  on  the  other;  and  that  just  so  sure  as  reli- 
gious liberty  leads  away  from  religious,  or  papal, 
intolerance,  so  irreligious  license  leads  to  irreligious, 
or  atheistic  intolerance. 

This  unbridled  interpretation  of  religious  liberty 
was,  however,  the  reaction  from  papal  intolerance 
swinging  to  the  opposite  extreme:  a  natural  tend- 
ency which  Satan  did  not  fail  to  take  advantage  of. 

The  Continental  Sunday  thus  furnishes  a  practi- 
cal demonstration  that  the  chief  opposing  elements 
to  true  Sabbath  reform  are  false  doctrines  regard- 


420  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

ing  the  Sabbath  and  a  false  conception  of  religious 
liberty.  The  same  influences  which  led  to  the  Conti- 
nental Sunday  will,  if  not  checked,  just  as  surely  lead 
to  the  same  result  in  England  and  America,  where  it 
has  already  a  strong  foothold. 

It  is  true  that  Sabbath  reform  has  at  times  erred 
on  the  side  of  intolerance ;  and  these  occasions  have 
always  resulted  in  injury  to  the  cause  in  the  inevi- 
table reaction  tending  to  swing  to  the  opposite  ex- 
treme. 

^'He  that  ruleth  over  men  must  be  just,  ruling  in 
the  fear  of  God. '  '—2  Sam.  23  :  3.  This  then  is  the 
Bible  Eule  for  civil  authority.  It  is  only  when  men 
do  not  rule  in  the  fear  of  God,  that  religious  liberty 
is  in  danger. 

^^ Blessed  is  the  nation  whose  God  is  the  Lord.'' — 
Psa.  33  :  12.  Acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of 
God  is  then  the  Bible  Rule  for  national  prosperity. 

**The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell,  and  all  the 
nations  that  forget  God. ' ' — Psa.  9  :  17.  Nations  for- 
get God  just  in  proportion  as  they  desecrate  the  Sab- 
bath. Keeping  the  Sabbath  holy  is  then  the  Bible 
Rule  for  national  security. 

True  religious  liberty  can  only  be  secured  in  the 
correct  application  of  these  Bible  rules,  not  in  dis- 
carding them.  Misapplication  of  a  rule  is  no  fault 
of  the  rule,  and  no  reason  for  discarding  it. 

True  reform  seeks  to  recognize  and  follow  the  line 
of  truth;  and,  to  this  end,  it  is  necessary  to  recog- 
nize and  guard  against  the  reactionary  extreme.  The 
vibrations  of  a  string  gradually  decrease  till  the 
string  comes  to  rest  in  the  true  line.  So  with  the 
reactionary  vibrations  of  reform. 


SABBATH  LEGISLATION  421 

The  Bible  lias  proved  itself  the  highest  rule  of 
action;  hence  the  line  laid  down  therein  is  the  true 
line  in  which  all  true  reform  must  come  to  rest.  This 
is  true  of  Sabbath  reform  as  well  as  any  other.  It 
is  evident,  therefore,  that  Sabbath  reform  must  come 
to  rest  in  the  true  line  extending  from  God's  Sab- 
bath law,  at  the  one  end,  and  man's  free  moral 
agency,  as  the  basis  of  religious  liberty,  at  the  other. 

Hence,  Sabbath  laws  should  recognize  the  Sabbath 
as  a  sacred  institution  by  prohibiting  whatever  tends 
to  desecrate  it;  and,  at  the  same  time,  recognize 
man's  free  moral  agency  by  giving  him  full  liberty 
to  worship  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  con- 
science or  not  to  worship  at  all. 

**The  Sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man 
for  the  Sabbath. "—Mark  2  :  27.  This  is  Christ's 
interpretation  of  the  Sabbath  law.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that  if,  under  certain  conditions  and  circum- 
stances, the  keeping  of  the  Sabbath  was  detrimental 
to  man's  highest  good,  that  fact  would,  during  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  suspend  the  Sabbath  law ;  and 
again,  if  man 's  welfare  were  better  served  by  chang- 
ing the  day  of  the  Sabbath,  that  fact  would  be  sufiS- 
cient  for  changing  the  day  of  the  Sabbath. 

These  suppositions  are  not  wholly  impossible, 
since  man's  highest  welfare  does  not  depend  on  con- 
ditions and  circumstances  that  are  necessarily  fixed 
and  unchangeable.  Herein  is  the  justification  of 
necessary  labor  on  the  Sabbath,  even  to  the  extent 
of  ordinary  labor. 

It  would  seem  practically  impossible,  under  pres- 
ent economic  conditions,  wholly  to  suspend  labor  on 
any  one  day  of  the  week ;  and  in  so  far  as  such  labor 


422  SABBATH  THEOLOGY 

is  necessary  to  the  highest  good  of  all,  it  is  full^ 
justified  in  Christ's  interpretation  of  the  Sabbath 
law.  But  Christ's  interpretation  certainly  does  not 
justify  in  the  slightest  degree  unnecessary  labor. 

It  is  claimed  that  Sunday  traffic  is  necessary;  but 
some  of  the  highest  railway  officials  have  admitted 
that  the  most  of  it  is  unnecessary.  (See  pamphlet 
entitled  Sunday  Railway  Work.) 

*^That  Sunday  trains  are  not  necessary  to  the 
prosperity  of  a  railroad  is  proved  by  the  Delaware, 
Lackawanna  and  Western.  Under  the  influence  of 
the  late  William  E.  Dodge  and  President  Sloan,  it 
has  always  refused  to  run  Sunday  trains,  but  from 
the  beginning  of  its  history  it  has  been  one  of  the 
most  prosperous  roads  in  the  country.  When,  in 
1873,  the  Central  Railroad  of  New  Jersey  decided  to 
run  Sunday  trains,  Mr.  Dodge  retired  from  its  man- 
agement and  sold  out  his  stock,  getting  a  high  premi- 
um. In  less  than  two  years  the  road  was  bankrupt, 
its  stock  selling  for  ten  cents  on  the  dollar.  We  do 
not  claim  that  bankruptcy  was  a  penalty  for  Sab- 
bath breaking,  but  it  shows  that  Sunday  trains  do 
not  make  a  road  prosperous.'' — The  Lord's  Day, 
Waffle,  pp.  338,  339.  Sunday  excursions,  Sunday 
mail  service,  Sunday  newspapers,  etc.,  involve  Sun- 
day labor  that  cannot  be  said  to  be  necessary. 

Since  ^Hhe  Sabbath  was  made  for  man"  and  is 
therefore  his  inherent  right,  those  who  labor  on  Sun- 
day are  entitled  to  some  other  day  of  the  week  as 
their  Sabbath ;  and  if  their  loss  of  the  Sunday  Sab- 
bath could  thus  be  fully  compensated,  no  direct  loss 
would  result.  But  this  is  not  possible;  for  the  loss 
of  pulpit  instruction,  and  social  and  religious  inter- 


SABBATH  LEGISLATIOlsT  423 

course  in  public  worship,  and  the  Christian  influence 
that  belongs  only  to  the  Sunday  Sabbath  cannot  be 
compensated. 

Sunday  excursions,  Sunday  base  ball,  Sunday 
theatres,  and  other  Sunday  amusements  are  direct 
desecrations  of  the  Sabbath  in  counteracting  the 
chief  purpose  for  which  the  Sabbath  was  instituted. 

It  is  evident  that  those  who  teach  that  the  Sabbath 
law  of  God  was  abolished  can  bring  no  valid  argu- 
ment against  these  things,  but  only  furnish  a  valid 
excuse.  It  is  only  in  maintaining  the  Sabbath  as  a 
sacred  institution,  ordained  and  commanded  by  God, 
that  these  things  can  be  validly  opposed. 

'^It  is  lawful  to  do  good  on  the  Sabbath  day." — 
Matt.  12  :  13,  R.  V. 


APPENDIX 


THE  LYING  SPIRIT 


An  Adventist  preacher  made  the  statement  in  the 
author's  home  that  D.  L.  Moody  kept  the  Saturday 
Sabbath  before  his  death.  The  following  letter  from 
the  son  of  D.  L.  Moody  to  the  author's  sister  will 
therefore  explain  itself. 

East  Northfield,  Mass.,     , 
November  8, 1911. 
Miss  Alice  C.  Logan, 

Loreburn,  Sask.,  Can. 
Dear  Miss  Logan: 

I  have  had  so  many  letters  similar  in  character  to 
yours  of  the  16th  ult.  from  the  Pacific  Coast,  that  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  the  story  that  my  father 
observed  the  seventh  day  is  attributable  to  the  same 
source.  Either  these  people  who  tell  this  story  are 
careless  in  investigating  the  facts,  or  are  purposely 
circulating  an  untruthful  rumor  in  their  proselyt- 
ing campaign. 


THE    LYING     SPIRIT  425 

The  statement  that  my  father  ever  observed  the 
seventh  day  as  the  Sabbath  is  absolutely  untrue.  At 
one  time  in  his  life,  more  especially  in  his  earlier  life, 
he  used  to  take  Saturday  as  a  day  of  rest,  which 
meant  to  him  a  day  when  he  did  not  preach,  but 
sought  relaxation  and  recreation  with  his  family. 
The  later  years  of  his  life  were  more  strenuous,  and 
it  frequently  happened  that  he  never  let  up  in  his 
work  for  many  weeks  at  a  time.  The  rumor  is  there- 
fore doubly  untrue,  and  both  in  print,  and  by  letter, 
1  have  denied  it.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  untrue  that 
in  his  later  years  he  observed  Saturday  at  all,  and 
whereas  Saturday  was  a  day  of  rest  to  him  in  the 
earlier  years  of  his  work,  it  was  not  a  day  of  reli- 
gious observance,  but  a  day  of  physical  relaxation 
and  rest.  I  should  be  very  glad  if  you  would  show 
this  letter  to  the  man  who  is  circulating  this  report, 
and  tell  him  that  it  is  absolutely  untrue,  and  I  hope 
he  will  do  his  part  to  stamp  out  a  lie. 

I  may  add  that  my  father,  on  the  one  occasion  I 
remember  his  mentioning  the  Seventh  Day  Advent- 
ism  to  me,  referred  to  it  as  a  form  of  legalism  with 
which  he  had  no  sympathy.  It  seemed  to  him  that 
the  Seventh  Day  Adventists  were  exercising  their 
energy  in  seeking  to  make  a  schism,  instead  of  try- 
ing to  reach  the  lost. 

Yours  sincerely, 

W.  R.  Moody. 

Satan  is  the  Lying  Spirit,  and  he  must  needs 
blind  those  whom  he  would  use  as  instruments  of 
deception  in  order  to  make  them  the  most  effective 
instruments  of  deception. 


426  APPENDIX 

Adventists  imagine  they  are  God's  special  agents 
to  warn  people  of  the  great  danger  of  being  deceived 
by  the  Lying  Spirit.  They  should  remember  that 
every  fanatic  thinks  the  same.  There  is  no  doubt 
but  that  at  least  the  great  majority  of  Adventist 
teachers  are  perfectly  honest  and  sincere ;  but  their 
honesty  and  sincerity  is  no  guarantee  that  they  are 
not  Satan's  blinded  tools.  They  herald  their  doc- 
trines in  a  series  of  tracts  entitled  ^^  Words  of 
Truth,"  but  the  title  is  no  guarantee  that  they  are 
words  of  truth. 

Adventists  have  perfect  faith  in  their  prophetess, 
Mrs.  White,  and  hence  to  them  her  visions  or  *  testi- 
monies," as  they  are  called,  are  direct  revelations 
from  God  and  therefore  settle  beyond  dispute  all 
questions  of  Bible  doctrine  with  which  they  deal. 
Adventists  claim  to  test  the  inspiration  of  these 
*  *  testimonies ' '  by  the  Bible,  which  only  means  their 
interpretation  of  the  Bible.  So  claimed  the  disciples 
of  Swedenborg,  of  Ann  Lee,  of  Mrs.  Southcott,  of 
Joseph  Smith,  etc.,  and  proves  no  more  in  the  one 
case  than  in  the  others.  Neither  does  Mrs.  White's 
exemplary  life  prove  any  more  in  her  case  than  in 
certain  of  the  others  whose  lives  were  just  as  exem- 
plary. 

**If  possible,  they  shall  deceive  the  very  elect" 
(Matt.  24  :  24).  This  certainly  implies  that  their 
lives  would  be  exemplary.  Satan  cannot  fail  to  rec- 
ognize the  importance  of  exemplary  lives  in  those 
whom  he  would  use  as  instruments  of  deception. 
Hence  he  transforms  himself  into  an  angel  of  light, 
and  by  thus  deceiving  them,  transforms  them  (in 
their  own  eyes)  into  ministers  of  righteousness  (2 


THE    LYING     SPIRIT  427 

Cor.  11  :  14,15),  tliat  tlirougli  tlie  force  of  tlieir  own 
honesty  and  sincerity  they  may  most  effectively  de- 
ceive others. 

Christ  warned  of  false  prophets  (Matt.  7  :  15; 
24  :'  24.  Also  1  John  4:1),  and  many  false  prophets 
have  arisen  whose  followers  in  some  cases  have  out- 
numbered those  of  Mrs.  White.  Were  they  less  intel- 
ligent! were  they  less  sincere  and  honest!  had  they 
less  faith  in  their  leaders!  had  they  less  confidence  in 
the  truth  of  their  doctrines!  Had  their  leaders  less 
faith  in  their  own  inspiration  and  divine  commis- 
sion! 

Adventists  claim  that  Mrs.  Wliite's  visions  are  at- 
tested by  supernatural  manifestations,  yet  they  ad- 
mit that  supernatural  manifestations  do  not  always 
come  from  God.  In  all  other  cases  they  unhesitat- 
ingly attribute  them  to  quite  a  different  source.  The 
false  prophets  *' shall  show  great  signs  and  wonders" 
(Mat.  24  :  24) :  therefore  supernatural  manifesta- 
tions do  not  prove  divine  inspiration.  The  Bible  is 
the  only  sure  test.  What  does  not  harmonize  with 
the  teaching  of  God's  word  cannot  be  inspired  of 
God,  for  God  cannot  contradict  himself.  The  Ad- 
yentists'  Sabbath  doctrine  is  of  course  fully  con- 
firmed by  Mrs.  White 's  visions ;  but  that  it  is  wholly 
at  variance  with  the  Bible,  we  believe  has  been  fully 
demonstrated  in  the  preceding  pages. 

All  the  first  generation  of  Seventh-day  Adventists 
were  Millerites  and  they  now  teach  that  the  Miller- 
ite  movement  was  the  first  angel's  message  (Rev. 
14  :  6,7).  The  movement  was  based  on  Miller's 
jjrophecies  of  the  end  of  the  world  in  1843  and  1844 


428  APPENDIX 

by  the  second  advent  of  Christ.  The  failure  of  his 
prophecies  necessarily  proved  him  a  false  prophet; 
and  this  fact  cannot  be  changed  by  any  after  inter- 
pretation of  his  prophecies  that  was  not  thought  of 
at  the  time  they  were  made.  ^^When  a  prophet 
speaketh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  if  the  thing  fol- 
low not,  nor  come  to  pass,  that  is  the  thing  which 
the  Lord  hath  not  spoken''  (Deut.  18  :  22).  Miller 
confessed  his  mistake  and  soon  after  died  a  sad  and 
disappointed  man. 

Some  of  the  Millerites  went  back  to  the  churches ; 
thousands  became  infidels,  Spiritualists,  etc.,  and  the 
remainder  broke  up  into  a  number  of  sects  which 
bitterly  denounced  each  other.  One  sect  adopted  the 
seventh  day  of  the  week  Sabbath  doctrine  and  be- 
came known  as  Seventh-day  Adventists;  but  this 
doctrine  was  an  after  attachment  which  Miller  him- 
self rejected.  During  the  whole  of  the  Millerite 
movement  they  kept  the  Sunday  Sabbath,  which  they 
now  claim  is  the  *^mark  of  the  beast"  and  which  is 
the  basis  of  their  third  angel 's  message.  That  all  the 
churches  which  opposed  the  Millerite  movement  are 
become  Babylon  is  the  basis  of  their  second  angePs 
message. 

The  commission  of  delivering  God's  final  messages 
to  the  world  calls  for  the  most  undeniable  proofs. 

The  Adventist  claim  to  this  commission  rests  on 
the  Millerite  movement,  which,  if  of  God,  proved 
God  on  their  side  and  against  the  churches  which 
opposed  them,  and  thus  as  God 's  chosen  people  they 
were  the  specially  appointed  interpreters  of  His 
inspired  word  and  the  special  recipients  of  His  mes- 
sages to  the  world.    Even  supposing,  for  the  sake  of 


THE    LYING     SPIRIT  429 

argument,  that  the  Millerite  movement  was  of  God, 
it  would  give  no  authority  to  the  Saturday  Sabbath 
doctrine,  for  the  Saturday  Sabbatli  doctrine  never 
had  the  sanction  of  the  Millerite  movement,  and  Sev- 
enth-day Adventists  can  furnish  no  proof  that  they 
are  the  authoritative  representatives  of  the  Miller- 
ite movement. 

The  Millerite  movement  ended  in  discord,  division, 
speculation,  conflicting  doctrines,  warring  factions, 
confusion,  etc. ;  a  disgraceful  spectacle  to  the  world, 
resulting  in  the  Bible  discredited  and  Christ  dishon- 
ored. *  *  By  their  fruits  ye  shall  know  them. ' '  ^  ^  God 
is  not  the  author  of  confusion.'' 

Adventists  claim  that  the  Millerite  movement 
must  be  of  God  because  attested  by  unmistakable 
manifestations  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  is  the  argu- 
ment of  every  fanatical  sect ;  but  it  counts  for  noth- 
ing to  Adventists  in  the  case  of  others  who  do  not 
agree  with  them,  then  it  counts  for  nothing  in  their 
case.  Religious  excitement  and  fanatical  enthusiasm 
are  always  attributed  by  those  exercised  thereby  to 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  moment  we  allow  emotion  to  override  reason 
and  judgment  we  put  ourselves  in  the  power  of  the 
Lying  Spirit,  for  God  has  endowed  man  with  reason 
and  judgment;  therefore  in  His  dealings  with  man 
He  does  not  ignore  man's  reason  and  judgment.  We 
do  not  discount  emotion,  but  we  must  look  for  the 
reason  back  of  it  and  base  our  faith,  not  on  the  emo- 
tion, but  on  the  reason. 

The  joy  of  salvation  is  due  to  a  realization  that 
God  is,  and  that  He  cannot  lie,  and  therefore  that 
His  promises  cannot  fail,  and  that  we  have  met  the 


430  .     APPENDIX 

conditions  and  accepted  His  promise  of  salvation 
throngh  Jesus  Christ.  Tliis  realization  cannot  fail 
to  produce  a  sense  of  joy  which  will  naturally  be  in 
exact  proportion  to  the  degree  of  the  realization. 
A  sense  of  joy  is  often  due  only  to  excitement,  and 
accepted  as  proof  of  salvation,  and  many  are  thus 
deceived  by  the  Lying  Spirit.  Therefore  feelings, 
in  and  of  themselves,  prove  nothing,  and  should  have 
no  place  as  argument.  If  we  base  our  faith  upon 
them,  Satan,  the  Lying  Spirit,  will  not  fail  to  make 
use  of  the  opportunity  thus  offered. 

The  Adventists'  1913  Year  Book  (pp.  285)  says,  in 
regard  to  their  origin  in  the  Millerite  movement, 
that  they  were  ^*  impressed  with  the  fact  that  God 
had  given  too  much  evidence  of  his  connection  with 
the  movement  to  allow  them  to  abandon  it,''  but,  ^'if 
the  time  was  wrong  every  thing  was  wrong. ' '  Hence 
to  admit  error  in  the  time  set  was  ^^to  abandon  the 
whole  previous  movement  with  all  its  accompanying 
manifestations  of  divine  power."  Therefore  they 
concluded  that  the  nature  of  ^'the  sanctuary"  and 
its  cleansing  had  been  misunderstood. 

They  boast  that  they  accept  no  proofs  but  Bible 
proofs  and  that  all  their  doctrines  are  based  on  a 
*  ^  thus  saith  the  Lord, ' '  yet  here  we  have  a  plain  ad- 
mission, that  their  very  origin  as  a  religious  sect 
was  based  solely  on  the  manifestations  of  divine 
power  which  they  believed  attended  the  Millerite 
movement.  They  know  full  well  that  there  is  no  posi- 
tive Bible  proof  locating  beyond  question  the  begin- 
ning of  the  2300  day  prophecy  (Dan.  8  :  14),  and 
hence  the  infallibility  which  they  assume  for  the 
Millerite  interpretation  of  that  prophecy,  must  be 


THE    LYING    SPIRIT  431 

based  on  the  manifestations  of  divine  power  sup- 
jjosed  to  attend  that  interpretation. 

The  Millerite  movement  was  in  its  very  nature 
peculiarly  calculated  to  arouse  fanatical  enthusi- 
asm and  excitement,  which  is  always  attributed  to 
the  Holy  Spirit  by  those  exercised  thereby.  There- 
fore the  claim  to  the  Holy  Spirit 's  manifestation  can 
prove  no  more  in  their  case  than  in  the  case  of  any 
other  fanatical  sect  making  the  same  claim.  Yet  all 
the  churches  became  Babylon  and  rejected  of  God  in 
rejecting  the  Millerite  movement.  Thus  Adventists 
make  God  an  unjust  judge,  in  condemning  where 
proofs  were  not  conclusive,  and  not  based  on  the 
Bible,  but  only  on  a  claim  that  every  fanatic  makes. 
A  claim  that  every  fanatic  makes,  and  which,  if 
true,  would  prove  many  conflicting  doctrines,  is  cer- 
tainly not  in  itself  conclusive  evidence,  and  God 
could  base  no  just  judgment  upon  it. 

'^  Other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is 
laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ.  Now  if  any  man  build 
upon  this  foundation  gold,  silver,  precious  stones, 
wood,  hay,  stubble;  every  man's  work  shall  be  made 
manifest.  For  the  day  shall  declare  it,  because  it 
shall  be  revealed  by  fire ;  and  the  fire  shall  try  every 
man's  work  of  what  sort  it  is.  If  any  man's  work 
abide  which  he  hath  built  thereupon,  he  shall  receive 
a  reward.  If  any  man's  work  shall  be  burned,  he 
shall  suffer  less :  but  he  himself  shall  be  saved ;  yet 
so  as  by  fire." — 1  Cor.  3  :  11-15. 

Then  because  the  foundation  is  sure  is  no  guar- 
antee that  the  building  is  sure,  neither  is  the  perish- 
able building  any  guarantee  that  the  foundation  is 
not  sure.    Because  a  man  is  a  Christian  is  no  guar- 


432  APPENDIX 

■  I 

antee  that  his  works  will  not  be  burned  np,  neither 
is  the  perishable  nature  of  his  works  any  guarantee 
that  he  is  not  a  Christian  and  will  not  be  saved  yet 
so  as  by  fire.  Because  the  Seventh-day  Adventist 
Church  is  built  on  the  sure  foundation  in  Jesus 
Christ  is  no  guarantee  that  the  doctrinal  structure 
is  not  wood,  hay  and  stubble,  instead  of  gold,  silver 
and  precious  stones. 

Satan  cannot  destroy  the  foundation,  but  he  will 
do  all  in  his  power  to  have  wood,  hay  and  stubble 
built  upon  it,  for  people  will  judge  the  foundation  by 
the  building;  and  thus  Christ  is  dishonored  and 
Satan  exults.  And  fanaticism  is  undoubtedly  one  of 
the  most  effective  means  which  Satan  uses  to  this 
end. 

The  false  prophets  shall  ^4ead  astray  if  possible 
even  the  elect''  (Matt.  24  :  24  R.  V.) :  not,  ^^If  it 
were  possible,''  as  in  the  common  version,  implying 
that  it  was  not  possible,  but,  ^'If  possible,"  imply- 
ing that  it  was  possible.  And  it  is  all  too  evident 
that  even  the  '^very  elect"  are  often  led  astray.  We 
do  not  doubt  that  Seventh-day  Adventists  include 
many  of  the  ^'very  elect:"  the  sure  foundation  in 
Jesus  Christ  will  insure  their  salvation ;  but  as  with 
all  others  their  works  must  be  subjected  to  the  test- 
ing fire,  and  if  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  will  be  con- 
sumed. 

*^Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel 
to  every  creature"  is  Christ's  command. 

How  far  this  command  has  been  carried  out  dur- 
ing the  past  hundred  years  by  the  Protestant  evan- 
gelical churches  is  shown  in  the  following  compari- 
son given  in  The  Missionary  Review  of  the  World ; — 


THE    LYING    SPIRIT  433 

1810 

'^Nearly  every  country  in  Asia  and  Africa  was 
closed  to  the  Gospel. 

The  church  did  not  believe  in  foreign  missions. 

There  were  practically  no  Protestant  Christians  in 
heathen  lands. , 

Only  one  hundred  foreign  missionaries  had  been 
sent  out.  The  Bible  was  translated  into  only  sixty- 
five  languages. 

Only  a  few  thousands  of  dollars  were  given  yearly 
for  foreign  missions. 

There  were  no  medical  missionaries. 

There  were  no  mission  hospitals  or  orphanages. 

There  was  no  native  Christian  missionary. 

Missionary  work  was  not  recognized  in  American 
and  British  colleges. 

There  were  no  unmarried  women  missionaries, 
and  no  organized  work  for  women. 

There  were  no  mission  presses  or  agencies  for  pre- 
Xjaring  and  distributing  Christian  literature  in  non- 
Christian  lands. 

1910. 

Practically  every  nation  in  the  world  is  open  to 
missionaries. 

All  evangelical  churches  are  interested  in  missions. 
To  speak  against  missions  is  counted  a  disgrace, 
and  a  sign  of  ignorance. 

More  than  two  million  Protestant  Christians  have 
been  gathered  in  heathen  lands — besides  all  who 
have  died  in  the  faith. 

There  are  nearly  twenty-two  thousand  foreign 
missionaries  in  the  world. 


434  APPENDIX 

The  Bible  lias  been  translated  into  about  ^ve  liun- 
drecl  languages  and  dialects. 

Total  foreign  missionary  contributions  amount  to 
nearly  $25,000,000  annually. 

Thousands  of  medical  missionaries  in  heathen 
lands  treat  three  million  patients  a  year. 

There  are  400  mission  hospitals,  and  over  500  or- 
jjlianages  and  asylums  in  foreign  lands,  operated  by 
missionaries. 

There  are  over  six  thousand  unmarried  women 
missionaries  to  heathen  women  and  children. 

There  are  about  ninety-three  thousand  native  pas- 
tors, evangelists,  etc.,  working  among  their  own 
people. 

There  are  nearly  30,000  schools  and  colleges  con- 
ducted by  Protestant  missionaries  in  foreign  lands. 

There  are  over  160  publishing  houses  and  mission 
presses,  and  400  Christian  periodicals  are  published 
on  the  mission  fields. 

Thousands  of  college  students  are  on  the  mission 
field,  and  thousands  are  preparing  to  go. 

And  yet  to-day  one  billion  people  are  still  ignorant 
of  the  Gospel  of  Jesus,  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God 
and  Saviour  of  the  world."  i 

We  think  we  may  safely  estimate  that  nine-tenths 
of  this  advance  has  been  since  1844,  when,  according 
to  Adventists,  these  missionary  churches  became 
Babylon  and  rejected  of  God.  j 

It  is  very  evident  that  if  God  had  rejected  the 
churches,  He  would  cease  to  work  through  them. 
Then  we  must  conclude  that  God's  sanction  was  not 
in  this  carrying  out  of  Christ's  command  or  else 
that  Seventh-day  Adventists  (and  also  a  few  other 


THE    LYING    SPIRIT  435 

sects)  are  at  least  somewhat  premature  in  announc- 
ing the  Churches  to  be  Babylon. 

Adventists  are  constrained  to  admit,  by  reason 
of  the  very  overwhelming  force  of  evidence,  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  in  the  work  of  Moody  and  others; 
but  in  all  such  admissions  they  contradict  their  own 
doctrine,  that  the  churches  are  Babylon  and  rejected 
of  God,  for,  if  this  were  true,  it  is  evident  that  God 
would  cease  to  work  through  them. 

The  fact  stands  that  God  is  using  the  evangelical 
Protestant  denominations  to  evangelize  the  world. 
The  proof  of  the  God  given  mission  of  the  Protestant 
church  among  the  heathen  is  that  it  is  accomplishing 
this  evangelization  along  the  lines  of  spiritual  and 
moral  persuasion  as  practiced  by  Christ.  There  is 
no  compulsion  and  no  mere  counting  of  numbers. 
These  missions  try  to  make  sure  of  the  spiritual 
change  of  heart.  That  they  are  sometimes  mistaken 
is  only  to  be  expected.  The  Boxer  uprising  was 
proof  to  the  world  of  the  genuineness  of  the  Chris- 
tianity of  the  majority  of  the  Chinese  Christians. 

The  evangelical  Protestant  denominations  can  and 
do  agree  upon  the  essentials  of  Christian  doctrine. 
Therefore  they  can  and  do  work  in  a  great  comity  of 
missions,  thereby  making  it  possible  to  evangelize 
the  world  without  unnecessarily  confusing  the  minds 
of  the  heathen.  This  is  a  very  strong  evidence  of 
the  God-given  character  of  the  mission  of  the  Pro- 
testant Evangelical  Church  as  represented  by  the 
various  Protestant  evangelical  denominations  to-day. 

The  several  small  sects  which  oppose  each  other, 
and  which  denounce  the  great  evangelical  churches 
as  Babylon,  clearly  retard  the  advance  of  Christ  ^s 


436  APPENDIX 

Kingdom  both  at  home  and  abroad,  but  especially  on 
the  foreign  field — a  very  strong  evidence  that  their 
commission  is  not  from  God. 

Adventists  have  missions  in  many  parts  of  the 
world;  but  these  are  essentially  proselyting  mis- 
sions, for  their  avowed  message  is  to  call  the  Chris- 
tian people  out  of  Babylon  (or  the  churches),  and 
hence,  wherever  their  missions  exist  along  with, 
others,  they  antagonize  the  missions  of  othei! 
churches  and  thus  confuse  the  people  and  retard  ther 
advance  of  Christ's  Kingdom. 

Because  of  their  doctrine,  that  the  churches  are 
Babylon  and  rejected  of  God,  and  also  because  of 
their  Sabbath  doctrine,  it  is  evidently  impossible 
in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  for  Adventists  to  join 
in  the  general  comity  of  missions,  but  must  stand 
out  in  opposition  to  all,  and  thus  become  a  positive 
hindrance,  instead  of  help  in  the  evangelization  of 
the  world. 

As  a  rule  they  follow  other  missions.  They  jus- 
tify this,  we  suppose,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  their 
special  mission  to  counteract  the  false  doctrines 
taught  by  the  other  churches.  Their  main  strength, 
at  home  or  on  the  mission  field,  is  what  they  pro- 
selyte from  other  churches.  They  accomplish  but 
little  in  reaching  the  unconverted,  if  we  may  judge 
from  apparent  results,  and  what  little  they  accom- 
plish in  this  line  is  through  the  elements  of  truth 
which  they  hold  in  common  with  other  churches. 

Compulsory  Sabbath  labor  deprives  the  laboring 
•man  of  an  opportunity  of  hearing  the  Gospel,  and 
compulsory  Sabbath  labor  cannot  be  prevented  with- 
out Sabbath  legislation.  Hence  in  opposing  Sabbath 


THE    LYING     SPIRIT  437 

I 

legislation,  Adventists  help  to  deprive  the  laboring 
man  of  an  opportunity  of  hearing  the  Gospel;  and 
thus  they  retard  the  Gospel,  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  while  the  Lying  Spirit  blinds  them  into 
supposing  that  they  are  the  only  true  champions  of 
the  Gospel. 

They  argue  that  their  work  is  attested  by  mani- 
festations of  God's  blessing,  and  then  shut  their 
eyes  to  the  hundred-fold  more  manifestations  of 
God's  blessing  on  the  work  of  other  churches  and 
allow  the  Lying  Spirit  to  persuade  them  that  their 
work  alone  has  God's  sanction  and  blessing,  since 
the  other  churches  have  become  Babylon  and  re- 
jected of  God,  after  the  Millerite  movement  in  1844. 

It  would  seem  to  be  but  just  to  attribute  this  ap- 
parent blindness  mainly  to  ignorance  in  regard  to 
the  work  of  other  churches.  Such  blindness,  if  not 
due  to  ignorance,  can  only  be  due  to  an  assumption 
of  infallibility  of  doctrine.  Yet  they  are  the  loudest 
in  denouncing  any  assumption  of  infallibility  in 
others. 

If  they  are  preaching  the  second  and  third  angel's 
messages,  as  they  claim,  then  their  doctrine  must  be 
true ;  and  this  is  the  evident  basis  of  their  assumed 
infallibility. 

Their  second  angel's  message  teaches  that  the 
churches  have  become  Babylon  in  rejecting  the  Mil- 
lerite message,  and  thus  rests  on  the  Millerite  move- 
ment as  the  first  angel's  message;  and  so  both  must 
stand  or  fall  together.  If  their  second  angel's  mes- 
sage is  false,  it  is  certain  that  God  would  not  commit 
to  them  the  third  angel's  message.     Hence  their 


438  APPENDIX 

third  angePs  message,  involving  tlie  Sunday  Sab- 
bath as  the  mark  of  the  beast,  must  stand  or  fall 
with  the  others. 

If  the  Babylon  of  Revelation  refers  primarily  to 
the  papacy,  as  Adventists  hold,  then  the  theory  that 
all  Protestantism  is  the  result  of  the  second  angePs 
message  in  the  Lutheran  Reformation  has  not  yet 
m.et  a  worthy  rival.  Here  is  a  worldwide  religious 
movement  worthy  of  prophetic  recognition,  and, 
until  it  is  eclipsed  by  a  greater  religious  movement 
answering  to  the  same  prophecy,  it  must  still  hold 
first  claim  to  prophetic  recognition;  for  it  is  unrea- 
sonable to  think  that  prophetic  recognition  would 
pass  by  a  greater  and  rest  on  a  lesser  reason  for 
recognition. 

Adventists  reject  this  theory  because  the  second 
angel's  message  must  be  after  the  first,  and  they 
hold  the  Millerite  movement  to  be  the  first  angePs 
message;  and  that  the  first  angePs  message  must  be 
near  the  end  of  time,  they  think  to  be  proven  in  its 
announcement  that  'Hhe  hour  of  his  judgment  is 
come.'' 

Again,  they  claim  that  Babylon  as  the  mother  of 
harlots  must  include  the  daughters,  and  that  these 
are  the  Protestant  churches  which  rejected  the  first 
angePs  message  in  the  Millerite  movement,  and  that 
the  message  that  ^^ Babylon  is  fallen''  must  include 
the  fall  of  all  and  could  not  be  given  until  the  fall 
of  all.  But  the  message  would  be  true  as  soon  as 
the  fact  of  fallen  Babylon  existed,  and  would  not 
cease  to  be  true  as  long  as  the  fact  existed,  and  that 
the  fact  existed  at  the  time  of  the  Reformation  can- 
not be  denied. 


THE    LYING    SPIRIT  439 

The  *^ great  city  of  confusion,"  or  *^ Babylon  of 
false  doctrines, ' '  includes  all  false  doctrines.  Every 
fanatical  sect  claims  to  be  the  only  exception,  but 
the  proof  is  not  in  the  claiming. 

In  regard  to  the  first  angel's  message.  Rev.  14  :  6 
represents  the  first  angel  as  *^  having  the  everlasting 
gospel  to  preach  unto  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth. ' ' 
**To  preach"  is  future  in  sense  and  locates  the  angel 
at  the  beginning  of  the  message  to  be  preached. 
What  was  the  ^^everlasting  gospel"  but  the  Gospel 
of  Jesus  Christ!  When  did  the  preaching,  of  this 
Gospel  begin  but  at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
dispensation! 

In  the  angel  we  recognize  a  herald  from  heaven. 
In  the  * ^ everlasting  gospel"  in  the  hands  of  the 
angel  we  recognize  a  message  from  heaven,  and  this 
message  is  plainly  stated  to  be  **unto  them  that 
dwell  on  the  earth. ' ' 

In  the  first  place,  a  herald  is  essentially  one  who 
proclaims  something  new — not  something  that  has 
already  been  proclaimed.  In  the  second  place,  if  the 
'^everlasting  gospel"  had  been  preached  for  cen- 
turies on  the  earth  it  could  not  fittingly  be  repre- 
sented as  afterward  borne  from  heaven  to  earth.  It 
was  borne  from  heaven  to  earth  in  a  primary  sense 
only  once — at  the  beginning — and  only  at  the  begin- 
ning can  the  figure  be  most  fittingly  applied.  In  the 
third  place,  the  phrase,  ^^to  preach,"  is  future  in 
sense,  and  the  phrase,  ' '  unto  them  that  dwell  on  the 
earth, ' '  is  inclusive  in  sense,  including  all  that  dwell 
on  the  earth.  Hence  the  ^'everlasting  gospel"  had 
not  yet  been  preached  to  any.  Thus  a  literal  analysis 
of  the  passage  locates  the  angel  at  the  beginning  of 
the  Gospel  dispensation. 


440  APPENDIX 

The  angel  also  proclaimed,  *  ^  The  hour  of  his  judg- 
ment is  come'^  (v.  7).  There  is  nothing  to  prove 
that  this  refers  directly  to  the  final  judgment. 
Christ  said,  ^^Now  is  the  judgment  of  this  world'' 
(John  12  :  31).  Peter  said,  ^'The  time  is  come  when 
judgment  must  begin  at  the  house  of  God''  (1  Pet. 
4  :  17).  Christ  said,  ^'The  word  that  I  have  spoken, 
the  same  shall  judge  him  in  the  last  day"  (John 
12  :  48).  Then  the  light  of  the  Gospel  will  judge 
man  in  the  final  judgment,  and  is  thus  in  itself  the 
final  judgment,  since  it  carries  the  final  judgment 
in  itself;  and  in  this  sense  the  hour  of  God's  judg- 
ment has  come  from  the  beginning  of  the  Gospel 
light,  and  the  Gospel  light  has  been  judging  the 
world  ever  since,  wherever  it  has  been  shining.  This 
is  further  implied  in  the  present  tense  of  the  mes- 
sage, *^The  hour  of  his  judgment  is  come,"  which, 
to  be  strictly  literal,  locates  the  hour  of  his  judg- 
ment at  the  beginning,  not  at  the  ending  of  the  mes- 
sage. 

Adventists  teach  that  this  judgment  refers  to  the 
*  investigative  judgment,"  which,  they  affirm,  began 
in  1844,  thus  making  the  tense  of  the  message  future 
at  the  time  it  was  proclaimed.  (^^Investigative  judg- 
ment" is  a  term  coined  by  Adventists  to  designate 
a  doctrine  which  they  themselves  originated.) 

If  the  three  angels'  messages  constitute  in  them- 
selves a  distinct  and  independent  line  of  prophecy, 
as  Adventists  themselves  admit,  it  would  most  nat- 
urally embrace  the  entire  Christian  dispensation — 
not  merely  the  latter  end  of  it. 

In  regard  to  the  third  angel's  message,  it  must 
necessarily  be  after  the  second  angel's  message,  and 


THE    LYING     SPIRIT  441 

we  would  naturally  expect  as  literal  a  beginning  as 
in  the  other  cases.  The  Adventists'  Sabbath  doc- 
trine is  as  old  as  the  Jewish  nation.  Giving  it  a  new 
setting  as  the  third  angel's  message  cannot  make  it 
a  new  message  with  a  literal  beginning  after  the 
second  angePs  message.  The  third  angePs  message 
will  certainly  not  be  given  until  it  is  due,  but  must 
evidently  be  given  before  the  end  of  time. 

A  falling  body  hastens  as  it  nears  the  earth. 
Hence  it  would  be  according  to  a  law  of  nature  if 
the  Gospel  dispensation  hastened  as  it  nears  the  goal 
of  its  gravitation  in  the  second  advent  of  Christ,  and 
therefore  the  final  message  may  occupy  but  a  brief 
space  of  time.  ^^A  thousand  of  our  years  is  only  a 
day  to  Him.  But,  when  the  day  of  the  Lord  comes, 
He  will  do  in  a  day  the  work  of  a  thousand  years. ' ' 
(Dr.  Hume). 

For  the  sake  of  brevity,  we  have,  throughout  this 
book,  used  the  word  ^^Adventisf  in  referring  to 
Seventh-day  Adventists.  But  all  are  *  ^  adventists ' ' 
who  believe  in  the  soon  appearing  of  our  Lord  in  His 
second  advent  glory,  and  we  have  had  no  intention  of 
throwing  the  slightest  discredit  on  this  doctrine. 

Eeligious  zeal,  enthusiasm,  and  fervor  are  but  the 
expressions  of  intensity  of  faith,  whether  based  on 
truth  or  error.  It  is  not  a  question  of  the  basis  of 
faith,  but  of  tae  intensity  of  faith.  No  greater  ex- 
ample of  religious  zeal  and  enthusiasm  can  be  found 
than  in  the  heathen  women  who  threw  their  children 
to  the  crocodiles  to  appease  their  gods.  Therefore, 
religious  zeal,  enthusiasm  and  fervor  are,  in  them- 


442  APPENDIX 

selves,  no  proof  of  the  truth,  for  they  can  be  based 
.  on  error  as  naturally  as  on  the  truth — being  in  either 
case  but  the  expressions  of  the  intensity  of  faith. 

In  reading  the  bulletin  of  the  last  General  Confer- 
ence of  Seventh-day  Adventists  one  is  impressed 
with  the  religious  zeal,  enthusiasm  and  fervor  mani- 
fested, but,  as  we  have  just  seen,  this  is  no  neces- 
sary evidence  of  the  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Still,  this  apparent  evidence  of  the  Holy  Spirit's 
presence,  we  would  not  presume  to  say  was  all  only 
apparent.  There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  honors  the  essential  truths  of  salvation  wher- 
ever, whenever,  and  by  whomsoever  preached,  but 
that  does  not  prove  the  Holy  Spirit's  indorsement 
of  every  doctrine  preached  in  the  same  connection. 
There  is  no  doubt  but  that  the  Holy  Spirit  honors 
(by  an  individual  blessing)  every  whole-hearted 
consecration  of  the  life  to  God  in  whatever  cause  it 
may  be,  but  that  is  no  proof  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  in- 
dorsement of  the  cause.  Otherwise,  the  Holy  Spirit 
would  contradict  itself  in  the  indorsement  of  con- 
flicting causes,  in  each  of  which,  equally  whole- 
hearted consecration  of  the  life  to  God  is  made. 

The  same  is  also  a  rational  explanation  of  any 
real  manifestation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  connection 
with  the  Seventh-day  Adventist  movement  through- 
out the  world.  The  Holy  Spirit  can  honor  the  truth 
involved  without  indorsing  the  error.  Truth  is  truth 
and  must  be  honored  as  truth  even  though  mixed 
with  error. 

The  steady  growth  of  the  Seventh-day  Adventist 
movement,  and  the  spiritual  blessings  claimed  by 
tliose  engaged  in  it,  were  continually  cited  through- 


I 


THE    LYING     SPIRIT  ^443 


out  the  conference  as  infallible  proofs  of  the  Holy 
Spirit's  guidance.  If  these  were,  in  themselves,  in- 
fallible proofs,  then  they  would  infallibly  prove  the 
Holy  Spirit's  guidance  in  conflicting  causes.  If 
proofs  at  all,  their  greater  weight  is  on  the  side  of 
the  greater  measure,  which  is  undoubtedly  the  side 
of  the  Sunday  Sabbath  phase  of  the  Gospel's  pro- 
gress. What  counts  on  both  sides  of  a  question  can 
evidently  in  itself,  furnish  no  proof  on  either  side. 

Among  the  responses  to  Mrs.  White's  message  to 
the  Conference  are  the  following  (see  Conference 
Bulletin,  p.  165) :  ^^The  Lord  is  talking  to  us  yet." — ■ 
Elder  J.  N.  Loughborough;  ^^I  thank  the  Lord  that 
we  have  the  Lord's  voice  among  us  still." — Elder 
S.  N.  Haskell.  These  voiced  the  sentiment  of  all,  and 
unmistakably  referred  to  the  words  of  Mrs.  White's 
message  as  the  direct  embodiment  of  the  Lord's 
voice,  and  hence  just  as  authoritative  and  infallible 
as  the  Bible. 

Among  the  quotations  from  Mrs.  White's  own 
writings,  also  read  before  the  same  Conference,  are 
the  following  (Bulletin,  p.  235) :  ^^Yet  now  when  I 
send  you  a  testimony  of  warning  and  reproof  many 
will  declare  it  is  the  opinion  of  Sister  White.  You 
have  thereby  insulted  the  Spirit  of  God ; ' '  again,  ^ '  I 
do  not  write  one  article  in  the  paper,  expressing 
merely  my  own  ideas.  They  are  what  God  has 
opened  before  me  in  vision — the  precious  rays  of 
light  shining  from  the  throne." 
f  Could  any  more  positive  claim  to  infallibility  be 
made?  We  indorse  the  Adventist's  denunciation  of 
the  Catholics'  claim  to  the  pope's  infallibility,  but 


444  ^  APPENDIX 

I 

we  fail  to  see  their  consistency  when  in  reality  (if 
not  in  direct  statement)  they  make  the  same  claim  in 
the  case  of  their  own  leader.  If  the  claim  in  one  case 
is  blasphemy,  it  must  also  be  blasphemy  in  the  other 
(unless  true) ;  for  both  rest  on  exactly  the  same  as- 
sumption— God 's  voice  speaking  through  man.  Any 
explanation  that  Adventists  can  make  of  their  ex- 
pressions regarding  Mrs.  White  can  be  and  is  used 
by  Catholics  in  explanation  of  their  expressions  re- 
garding the  pope.  To  doubt  the  inspiration  of 
Mrs.  White's  ^^Testimonies''  is  the  first  stage  of 
apostasy  from  the  Seventh-day  Adventist  Church. 
This  is  only  one  feature  of  resemblance  between  Ad- 
ventist and  Catholic  propagandas  which  could  fairly 
be  interpreted  as  suggesting  an  ^4mage"  of  the 
*^  beast." 

We  quote  again  from  the  Bulletin  (p.  195).  In  re- 
ferring directly  to  Mrs.  White 's  instructions  relative 
to  Loma  Linda  College,  which  had  just  been  read, 
Elder  W.  A.  Euble  said,  *'When  God  speaks.  Sev- 
enth-day Adventists  listen  and  say.  Amen."  Mrs. 
White  was  also  frequently  referred  to  during  the 
Conference  as  God's  special  messenger,  and  as  the 
spirit  of  prophecy. 

That  the  words  of  Mrs.  White  are  regarded  by 
Adventists  as  the  direct  voice  of  God  speaking 
through  her,  is  too  evident  to  be  mistaken.  It  is  in 
fact  a  vital  point  of  their  doctrine.  Hence  Mrs. 
White's  ''Testimonies"  are  to  Adventists  the  end 
of  all  argument  on  all  disputed  points  of  Bible  doc- 
trine with  which  they  deal,  Just  as  the  edicts  of  the 
pope  are  to  Catholics.    Therefore  they  are  a  posi- 


THE    LYING     SPIRIT  445 

,  tive  obstruction  to  the  free  course  of  the  Bible  as 
[truly  as  are  the  edicts  of  the  pope. 

If  Mrs.  White's  ^^Testimonies''  (or  visions)  are, 
as  claimed,  ^^The  precious  rays  of  light  sliining  from 
the  throne. ' '  They  are  equal  in  authorit}^  to  the  Bible, 
and  since  tliej^  are  thus  accepted  by  Adventists,  it 
is  inevitable  that  Adventists  must  interpret  the  Bible 
in  the  light  of  tliem;  and  that  this  is  a  fact  is  all  too 
evident  to  be  successfully  denied.  Of  course  they 
must  deny  the  fact,  and  even  try  to  persuade  them- 
selves that  they  are  only  interpreting  the  ^^Testi- 
monies" in  the  light  of  the  Bible.  But,  if  the  ^^Tes- 
timonies" in  any  degree  influence  their  interpre- 
tation of  the  Bible,  then  just  to  that  extent  the  Bible 
is  interpreted  in  the  light  of  them:  and  it  is  neces- 
sarily true,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  that  their 
interpretation  of  the  Bible  is  influenced  in  exact  pro- 
portion to  their  faith  in  the  "Testimonies."  Thus 
it  is  inevitably  true  that  they  interpret  the  Bible  in 
the  light  of  Mrs.  White's  "Testimonies"  just  as 
truly  as  the  Mormons  interpret  the  Bible  in  the  light 
of  the  "Book  of  Mormon." 

Adventists  pose  as  the  champions  of  the  Bible. 
They  boast  that  they  hold  the  Bible  to  be  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith:  yet  they  hold  the  "Testi- 
monies" to  be  directly  inspired  of  God,  which  makes 
them  equally  infallible.  They  boast  that  they  accept 
no  proofs  but  Bible  proofs:  yet  the  "Testimonies" 
are  to  them  the  end  of  all  argument.  They  boast 
that  they  "just  let  the  Bible  interpret  itself:"  yet 
persist  in  interpreting  the  Bible  in  the  light  of  the 
"Testimonies."  They  boast  that  they  accept  the 
Bible  from  Genesis  to  Eevelation  without  question 


446  APPENDIX 

or  quibble :  yet  they  question  and  quibble  it  into  har- 
mony with  the  '^Testimonies."  Thus  their  boasts 
are  contradicted  in  their  practice  and  therefore 
shown  to  be  but  the  boasts  of  the  Lying  Spirit. 

Mrs.  White  ^s  writings  contain  much  valuable  truth 
— so  do  many  other  books.  But  that  fact  does  not 
prove  in  any  case  that  they  are  infallible  on  all 
points  of  doctrine.  For  Mrs.  White's  '^ Testi- 
monies,'' to  be  accepted  as  infallible,  the  proofs  of 
their  divine  inspiration  must  be  infallible.  Are  the 
proofs  infallible?  They  are  simply  Mrs.  White's 
claim  to  divine  inspiration,  and  certain  apparently 
supernatural  manifestations  attending  her  visions, 
which,  however,  are  not  impossible  of  explanation 
without  involving  any  supernatural  element.  (Ad- 
ventists  have  no  difficulty  in  explaining  supernatural 
manifestations,  in  the  case  of  Spiritualism,  as  due 
to  the  Lying  Spirit.) 

It  is  easily  conceivable  how  that  a  person,  per- 
fectly sincere  and  honest,  with  vivid  imagination,  a 
highly  emotional  and  religious  temperament,  self- 
assertive  disposition,  fanatically  inclined,  and  pos- 
sessed with  some  new  religious  thought,  may  imag- 
ine himself  or  herself  to  be  inspired  of  God ;  and  how 
that  if  hysterically  tempered,  these  conditions  might 
incite  hysteria,  and  would  control  the  mind  during 
the  hysteric  state,  and  result  in  supposed  visions. 
Hence  the  supposed  visions  would  not  prove  the  char- 
acter of  the  religious  thought  that  controlled 
them.  Error  could  control  the  supposed  visions  just 
as  naturally  as  truth,  without,  in  either  case,  involv- 
ing any  supernatural  element.  But  in  the  last  analy- 
sis, all  truth  is  from  the  Spirit  of  truth,  and  all  error 
from  the  Lying  Spirit. 


THE    LYING    SPIRIT  447 

The  very  nature  of  the  Millerite  movement,  and 
also  the  formative  stage  of  the  Seventh-day  Advent 
movement,  in  the  belief  that  the  former  was  the  jjroc- 
lamation  of  the  first  angel 's  message,  and  the  expec- 
tant state  in  regard  to  the  second  and  third  angePs 
messages,  and  the  readiness  to  seize  upon  any  con- 
dition as  a  fulfillment  of  prophecy  were  all  peculiar- 
ly calculated  to  act  upon  a  subject  peculiarly  suscep- 
tible to  their  influence,  and  therefore  justify  the  rea- 
sonableness of  the  explanation  here  given  of  Mrs. 
White's  visions.  And  we  can  be  sure  that  the  Lying 
Spirit  is  always  quick  to  recognize  and  to  act  upon 
favorable  conditions. 

It  is  a  very  easy  matter  to  doctor  up  a  prophecy, 
after  it  has  apparently  failed,  by  giving  it  some 
vague  mystical  future  interpretation  which  was  not 
thought  of  at  the  time  it  was  made,  as  in  the  cases 
of  certain  of  Mrs.  White's  prophecies.  But,  for  a 
prophecy  to  have  any  practical  value,  it  must  be  in- 
terpreted in  the  sense  in  which  it  was  meant  at  the 
time  it  was  made  and  be  subject  to  the  test  of  Deut. 
18  :  22.  Otherwise  the  test  would  manifestly  be  in- 
operative. 

If  honesty,  sincerity,  zeal,  enthusiasm,  fervor,  joy, 
etc.,  w^ere  proofs  of  truth  they  would  prove  many 
conflicting  doctrines.  It  is  manifest  therefore  that 
none  of  these  things  can,  in  themselves,  count  as 
proof  of  doctrine.  Hence  the  Bible  alone  is  the  only 
basis  of  proof  on  all  Bible  doctrines. 

*^  Search  the  scriptures '*  (John  5  :  39). — ^' Prove 
all  things"  (1  Tim.  5  :  31).  To  prove  all  things  by 
the  Scriptures,  the  Scriptures  must  have  free  course ; 


448  APPENDIX 

but  the  decrees  of  the  pope,  the  Book  of  Mormon, 
and  Mrs.  White's  ^^Testimonies''  obstruct  the  free 
course  of  the  Bible  in  exact  proportion  to  the  faith 
that  people  have  in  them.  And  in  so  far  as  they 
obstruct,  they  can  only  be  in  the  interest  of  the  Lying 
Spirit. 

To  turn  truth  into  a  lie  is  the  one  aim  of  the  Ly- 
ing Spirit. 

If  Christians  keep  Sunday  solely  in  commemora- 
tion of  the  Resurrection,  it  is  to  them  solely  a  me- 
morial of  the  Resurrection;  then  to  deny  this  self- 
evident  fact  and  assert  that  it  is  in  no  possible  sense 
a  memorial  of  the  Resurrection,  but  only  a  relic  of 
pagan  sun-worship,  is  but  an  attempt  of  the  Lying 
Spirit  to  turn  truth  into  a  lie. 

If  Sunday  is  kept  by  Protestants  solely  in  recog- 
nition of  the  Resurrection,  it  does  not  involve  recog- 
nition of  any  State,  Church  or  Pope;  then  to  deny 
this  self-evident  fact  and  assert  that  it  cannot  be 
kept  without  recognizing  the  authority  of  the  Catho- 
lic church,  and  is  thus  the  mark  of  the  beast,  is  but 
an  attempt  of  the  Lying  Spirit  to  turn  truth  into  a 
lie. 

The  word  Easter  is  derived  from  Eastrae,  the 
heathen  goddess  of  Spring,  the  worship  of  whom  was 
in  recognition  of  the  resurrection  of  apparently  dead 
nature  into  new  life  by  the  coming  of  the  spring. 
What  they  thus  ignorantly  worshiped  (Act.  17  :  23) 
is  declared  to  be  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  *Hhe  resurrec- 
tion  and  the  life"  (John  11  :  25).  Then  the  resur- 
rection of  spring  is  a  fitting  memorial  of  the  Resur- 
rection of  Jesus  Christ,  and  Easter  as  thus  kept  is  a 


THE    LYING     SPIRIT  449 

yearly  tribute  to  Christ's  victorious  triumpli  over 
heathen  superstition  and  ignorance.  The  very  words 
Sunday  and  Easter,  by  reason  of  their  heathen  ori- 
gin, are  but  reminders,  and  thus  standing  witnesses 
of  Clirist  's  triumph  over  Satan. 

Denial  of  these  self-evident  facts  is  but  an  attempt 
of  the  Lying  Spirit  to  turn  truth  into  a  lie. 

Eead  John  5  ;  21-27 ;  Rom.  1:4;  Heb.  2  :  14,15 ; 
1  Cor.  15  :  17.  In  the  first  text,  Jesus  claimed  to 
have  power  over  death  because  of  life  in  Himself, 
and,  as  this  power  belonged  primarily  only  to  God, 
it  would  prove  Him  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  But  to 
prove  this  claim  to  man,  He  must  needs  meet  the 
supreme  test  by  Himself  passing  through  death  and 
overcoming  it  in  resurrection.  Also  ^Hhat  through 
death  he  might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of 
death,  that  is,  the  devil;  and  deliver  them  who 
through  fear  of  death  were  all  their  lifetime  sub- 
ject to  bondage.'' 

By  thus  proving  Himself  to  ^'be  the  son  of  God 
with  power,"  in  overcoming  death.  He  proved  His 
power  to  deliver  from  sin  and  death.  And  since, 
because  of  His  relation  to  man  as  the  Son  of  man, 
all  judgment  is  committed  unto  Him,  He  is  the  sole 
hope  of  salvation;  and  therefore  ^^all  men  should 
honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father,"  and 
they  honor  the  Father  by  thus  honoring  the  Son 
because  He  is  the  Son.  But  the  proof  of  all  this  is 
the  Resurrection,  for,  otherwise  Christ's  claim  to 
being  the  Son  of  God  would  have  proven  false. 

The  Resurrection  is  therefore  the  reason  of  our 
faith,  the  ground  of  our  hope,  and  the  pledge  of  our 
salvation. 


450  APPENDIX 

But  in  liis  efforts  to  withstand  the  power  of  the 
testimony  of  the  Eesurreetion,  Satan,  as  the  Lying 
Spirit,  must  needs  use  every  possible  means  to  turn 
truth  into  a  lie. 

As  the  great  standing  witness  to  the  Resurrection, 
the  Sunday  Sabbath  cannot  fail  to  receive  a  due 
share  of  his  attention.  As  it  points  to  the  Eesurree- 
tion, it  testifies  to  Christ's  triumph  over  Satan.  As 
it  points  to  heathen  sun-worship  or  to  the  authority 
of  the  Catholic  church,  it  testifies  to  Satan's  triumph 
in  perverting  the  true  worship  of  God.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  as  to  how  Satan  would  have  it  point, 
and  all  efforts  to  make  it  point  as  he  would  have  it 
point  can  only  be  inspired  by  him  whose  interest  is 
thereby  served,  and  are  therefore  but  attempts  of 
the  Lying  Spirit  to  turn  truth  into  a  lie. 

In  1  John  4  :  1-3  we  are  told,  ^'Believe  not  every 
spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  whether  they  are  of  God: 
because  many  false  prophets  are  gone  out  into  the 
world.  Hereby  know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God;  Every 
spirit  that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh  is  of  God :  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth 
not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  not  of 
God.'' 

Adventists  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in 
the  flesh.  So  do  all  orthodox  Christians  who  yet 
differ  on  Sabbath  doctrine.  Hence  the  spirit  of 
the  Sabbath  doctrine  must  be  tested  by  its  own  con- 
fession. 

Wherein,  or  in  what  sense,  does  the  spirit  of  the 
Saturday  Sabbath  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
in  the  flesh? 

The  Resurrection  testimony  of  the  Sunday  Sab- 


THE    LYING     SPIRIT  451 

Latli  is  a  clear  confession  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come 
an  the  flesh. 

The  doctrine  that  the  Sunday  Sabbath  is  only  a 
I'elic  of  pagan  sun-worship  and  the  mark  of  the  beast 
is  a  positive  denial  of  its  Resurrection  testimony,  and 
the  denial  of  Resurrection  testimony  is  of  the  spirit 
that  seeks  to  deny  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh. 

That  the  Sunday  Sabbath,  in  its  unbroken  leading 
back  to  the  Resurrection,  and  in  its  being  kept  in 
commemoration  of  the  Resurrection,  and  is  therefore 
the  great  standing  witness  to  the  Resurrection,  is  a 
self  evident  fact — self  evident  to  all  who  are  not 
hopelessly  theory  blinded. 

To  deny  a  self  evident  fact  is  to  insult  reason,  and 
to  shut  the  eyes  to  facts  for  the  sake  of  theory  is  to 
open  the  ears  to  the  Lying  Spirit. 

To  cling  to  a  doctrine  against  all  the  evidence  of 
reason  and  the  Bible  can  only  be  due  to  the  hypnotic 
power  of  the  doctrine  in  its  flattering  appeal,  and 
to  the  prejudice  involved  by  reason  of  early  train- 
ing, lifelong  association,  and  faith  in  human  teachers 
and  leaders.  All  of  which  influences,  as  against  the 
Bible,  Adventists  themselves  are  loud  in  attribut- 
ing to  the  Lying  Spirit. 


MUSICOLOGY. 

A  TEXT-BOOK  FOR  SCHOOLS  AND  FOR  GENERAL  USE. 

By  Maurice  S.  Logan. 

I  have  mucli  pleasure  in  commending  ^^Musico- 
logy^'  as  an  excellent  book  for  reference.  Touch- 
ing as  it  does  on  so  many  departments  of  musical 
science,  it  is  necessarily  brief  in  its  treatment  of 
some  subjects,  to  each  of  which  a  separate  volume 
could  well  be  devoted.  The  plan  of  the  work,  how- 
ever, is  excellent  and  has  been  admirably  executed. 
*  ^  Musicology ' '  deserves  a  place  in  every  music  lov- 
er's library.  Dr.  Edward  Fisher — Musical  Director 
' — Toronto  Conservatory  of  Music. 

Permit  me  to  congratulate  you  most  heartily  upon 
the  most  compendious  and  comprehensive  work  of 
its  kind  that  I  have  ever  seen.  Being  an  author  my- 
self, I  can  appreciate  the  time  you  must  have  spent, 
and  the  trouble  you  must  have  taken,  in  writing  a 
work  that  practically  covers  the  whole  of  the  theory 
and  science  of  music.  I  would  particularly  com- 
pliment you  upon  the  tables  and  diagrams  which 
abound  throughout  the  work,  and  students  will  find 
the  very  systematic  manner  in  which  the  subject  is 


presented,  of  the  greatest  value.  Musicology,  in 
fact,  is  a  book  that  every  musician  should  have  in 
his  library. — Dr.  J.  Humphrey  Anger — Science  of 
Music — Toronto  Conservatory  of  Music. 

After  close  inspection,  we  find  ^^Musicology"  one 
of  the  best  books  of  its  kind  that  we  have  looked  over 
in  some  time. — Dr.  Stephen  Commery — Director  and 
Manager — West  side  Musical  College,  Cleveland. 

I  do  not  like  the  title  '  ^  Musicology. ' '  The  sub- 
ject matter  is  good,  best  ever. — W.  B.  Strong — State 
College  of  Washington,  School  of  Music. 

A  FEW  CONDENSED  PEESS  NOTICES. 

^^Musicology''  is  an  admirable  text-book  on  the 
science  of  music.  The  explanations  and  definitions 
are  clear  and  correct.  A  great  deal  of  ground  is 
covered,  and  pupils  may  study  the  book  with  much 
advantage  to  themselves. — Rochester  Democrat  and 
Chronicle. 

This  book  is  handsomely  bound  and  bears  the  title 
^'Musicology. '^  It  is  of  especial  interest  to  vocal 
teachers  and  singers,  professional  or  scholars. — 
Item,  Mobile,  Ala. 

^^Musicology''  is  a  valuable  book  for  musicians, 
especially  students  who  desire  to  more  thoroughly 
understand  the  science  of  music,  and  it  is  a  volume 
that  may  be  said  to  be  unique,  in  that  it  seems  to  be 
about  the  first  one  of  its  kind. — Courier,  Buffalo, 
N.  Y. 

The  volume  is  brief,  simple,  and  adapted  for  the 
use  which  the  writer  intends. — Mail  Empire,  Tor- 
onto, Can. 


A  useful  and  interesting  text-book  on  the  theory 
of  music,  and  on  liarmony  and  counterpoint,  includ- 
ing a  short  summary  of  acoustics  from  the  musical 
view. — New  York  Sun. 

The  teaching  of  its  pages  is  sound.  The  author 
is  master  of  the  subject,  and  can  be  followed  safely. 
The  book  will  repay  careful  study  by  abundant  re- 
turns.— Evening  News,  Buffalo. 

As  taught  in  the  public  schools  to-day,  music  is 
rather  an  unsatisfactory  subject,  and  this  book  is 
designed  to  give  it  dignity  and  value.  To  the  piano 
man  of  scientific  bent  the  work  will  have  interest  as 
a  treatise  on  the  science  of  music.  It  is  doubtful  if 
there  is  anything  of  importance  in  the  science  of 
music  that  this  book  does  not  explain.  —  The 
Indicator,  Chicago,  111. 

It  is  a  work  on  musical  science,  dealing  with 
the  theory  and  philosophy  of  music,  and  the  title 
represents  the  coining  of  a  word  for  the  first  time 
to  indicate  the  science  of  music.  This  science  will 
doubtless  now  join  the  other  ^^ologies"  and  take 
its  right  place  among  them. — The  Musical  Trade 
Review,  New  York  City. 

At  last  a  work  has  appeared  that  meets  the  actual 
needs  of  those  who  teach  the  science  of  music. 
.  .  .  .  '^Musicology"  is  the  only  work  that  will 
meet  this  deficit  in  school  education. — The  Herald, 
Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 

^^Musicology'^  is  a  very  useful  book  on  musical 
instruction. — Press,  Pittsburgh,  Pa. 

It  deals  with  the  theoretical  phases  of  music  from 
a  scientific,  yet  popular,  point  of  view,  and  in  a 
clear  text-book  style.    Music  students  will  find  much 


general  and  practical  information  between  the 
covers. — The  Sacramento  Union,  Sacramento,  Cal. 

Under  the  title  of  ^'Musicology'^  comes  a  book 
that  would  not  be  amiss  in  every  home  boasting  of 
a  musical  instrument.  Its  author  has  managed  to 
compress  a  vast  amount  of  information  between  the 
two  covers. — Oakland  Tribune,  Oakland,  Cal. 

The  book  covers  a  tremendous  amount  of  ground 
and  should  prove  helpful  to  the  average  musician  or 
amateur,  because  of  the  great  amount  of  information 
therein. — The  Violin  World,  New  York  City. 

It  is  bound  to  be  of  interest  to  musicians  and  mu- 
sical students. — World-Herald,  Omaha,  Neb. 

The  book  accomplishes  its  purpose,  in  so  writing 
the  musical  rules  and  methods  that  those  who  have 
studied  no  branch  of  the  art  can  understand  musical 
structure. — The  Violinist,  Chicago,  111. 

A  work  on  the  science  of  music  is  decidedly 
acceptable.  The  author  shows  an  extensive  knowl- 
edge of  the  subject.  We  expect  that  teachers  will 
find  the  volume  very  useful. — Post  Express,  Roches- 
ter, N.  Y. 

^'Musicology"  is  one  of  the  best  text-books  for 
use  in  the  schools  which  has  been  placed  upon  the 
market  in  recent  years,  giving  in  the  simplest  form 
the  elementary  instruction  which  every  student  re- 
quires. It  is  a  book  which  every  music  student 
should  own. — Portland  Evening  Express,  Portland, 
Me. 

Cloth — $1.50  postpaid.  Hinds,  Noble  &  Eldridge, 
Publishers,  31-35  West  15th  Street,  New  York  City. 


LORD'S  DAY  ALLIANCE  OF  THE 

UNITED  STATES 

"Remember  the  Sabbath  Day  to  Keep  it  Holy." 


BRIEF  SKETCH  OF  ORIGIN  AND  ORGANIZATION 

Early  in  1888  a  movement  was  started  to  form  a  National 
Sabbath  organization  and  on  May  15th  the  General  Conference 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on  request  of  many  Sabbath 
Associations  and  friends  of  the  Christian  Sabbath,  took  definite 
action  on  the  same  and  appointed  twenty-one  charter  members  to 
represent  them.  Similar  action  was  also  taken  by  the  Presbyterians 
(all  branches),  Baptists,  Reformed  Church  in  America  and 
Lutherans.  Still  later  other  evangelical  churches  were  added 
until  there  are  sixteen  denominations  now  represented,  those 
additional  to  the  above  being  the  Congregational,  Disciples,  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  (South)  Moravian,  Protestant  Episcopal,  Re- 
formed Episcopal,  Reformed  Church  in  the  U.  S.,  United 
Brethren  in  Christ  and  United  American  Methodist  Episcopal. 
It  is  distinctly  an  Inter-denominational  organisation. 

The  members  were  convened  for  organization  at  the  home  of 
Mr.  Elliott  F,  Shepard,  New  York,  November  13th.  The  organiza- 
tion took  the  name  of  The  American  Sabbath  Union.  Mr.  Shepard 
was  elected  President,  and  Rev.  J.  H.  Knowles,  General  Secretary 
and  Editor  of  Publications,  to  serve  until  the  early  convening  of 
the  first  annual  meeting.  This  annual  meeting  occurred,  together 
with  the  first  National  Sabbath  Convention,  December  11-13,  in  the 
Foundry  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Washington,  D.  C,  the 
arrangements  being  made  by  the  Convention  Committee,  Rev. 
Wilbur  F.  Crafts  and  Rev.  J.  H.  Knowles,  with  the  advice  of  Chi- 
cago members  of  the  Union. 

The  first  regular  meeting  was  held  in  New  York  at  the  home 
of  Mr.  Shepard,  Dec.  18,  1888.  General  O.  O.  Howard  offered  the 
opening  prayer.  Mr.  Shepard  was  elected  President  pro  tem,  and 
afterward  President.  Rev.  J.  H.  Knowles,  D.D.,  was  elected  General 
Secretary. 

CHANGE  OF  NAME  IN  1908 

At  a  Convention  of  delegates  from  various  religious,  industrial, 
and  social  bodies  held  in  Pittsburgh,   Pa.,  December   1-3,   1908,  to 


consider  the  proposition  of  forming  a  "Lord's  Day  Alliance,"  the 
American  Sabbath  Union  was  unanimously  requested  to  make  such 
changes  in  its  Constitution  and  methods  as  the  times  seemed  to 
demand  and  thus  constitute  the  enlarged  organization.  In  observance 
of  this  request  the  revised  Constitution  and  By-Laws  now  governing 
the  organization  were  framed  on  January  12,  1909,  by  a  Joint  Com- 
mittee of  the  American  Sabbath  Union  and  of  the  Pittsburgh  Con- 
vention. The  National  organization  now  includes  ten  States  and 
sectional  auxiliary  and  affiliated  societies. 

OBJECT 

To  defend  and  preserve  the  Lord's  Day  as  a  day  of  rest  and 
worship  and  to  urge  and  secure  one  day  of  rest  in  seven  for  all  the 
toiling  masses.  By  safe  and  progressive  methods  it  works  for  the 
enforcement  of  Sunday  laws  and  the  securing  of  other  legislation 
in  the  interest  of  the  laboring  forces  and  of  Christian  citizenship. 

SUPPORT 

It  is  supported  by  free  will  offerings  of  churches,  societies  and 
individuals.  It  desires  and  earnestly  seeks  the  establishment  of  an 
endowment  which  would  place  it  on  a  permanent  foundation  and 
prompt  to  far  greater  endeavors  in  this  urgently  necessary  depart- 
ment of  United  Christian  activity.  If  the  outstanding  problems  of 
the  Church  and  Communities  heading  up  in  Sabbath  Desecration  are 
to  be  solved,  such  a  National  Organization  as  this  with  its  state  and 
district  auxiliaries  must  solve  them.  Let  every  friend  of  the  Lord's 
Day,  every  believer  in  the  weekly  rest  day,  give  his  support.  SEND 
US  YOUR  SUBSCRIPTION  for  as  large  an  amount  as  you  can 
give.  EVERY  CONTRIBUTOR  whose  name  and  address  we 
have,  receives  free  of  charge  FOR  ONE  YEAR  the  "LORD'S 
DAY  LEADER,"  our   official   Bi-monthly  publication. 

Send  us  requests  for  engagements  to  deliver  addresses  before 
Churches,  Societies,  Schools,  Colleges,  Seminaries,  Social  and  Indus- 
trial Organizations.  Inform  us  of  violations  of  the  Sunday  laws 
and  ask  our  help,  which   will  be   gladly  given  wherever  possible. 

Your  correspondence  will  receive  prompt  attention.  Send  all 
communications    to 

LORD^S  DAY  ALLIANCE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

GENERAL  SECRETARY 
203  Broadway,  New  York  City 

Incorporated  1800, 


PUBLICATIONS   AND   LITERATURE 

OF  THE 

Lord's  Day  Alliance  of  the  United  States 


t. 


Automobile,  The  Sunday.    W.  H.  Scott ic. 

Baseball 

Sports  and  Games  on  the  Lord's  Day ic. 

Golf 

Sunday  Golf.     C.  E.  Jefferson,  D.D ic. — 25c.  per  100 

Using  a  Good  Game  in  a  Wrong  Way 

Malcolm  James  MacLeod ic. 

Lord's  Day  Alliance 

How  the  Alliance  Operates.     John  McDowell,  D.D free 

Lord's  Day  Service — Special  program  for  Lord's  Day  Week, 
(or  Convenient  Sunday),  Young  People's  Societies, 
Churches.      Supplied    in    quantities — sample    free. 

Lord's    Day    Leader — the    bi-monthly    publication     (samples 

free)    25c.  yearly 

Results    or    Things    Accomplished free 

Vital  Facts   for  Vigorous  Action free 

Moving  Picture  Shows,  Sunday — Why?. ic. — 25c.  per  100 

Railroads  and  the  Sabbath ic. 

Theatre,   Vaudeville,   etc. — Sunday   (in  preparation) ic. 

The  Sabbath 

Sabbath  Theology.     M.  S.  Logan $1.50 

(A  reply  to  those  who  insist  that  Saturday  is  the  only 

true   Sabbath  Day) 

Scientific  Demonstration   of   the   Sabbath  Law,   Haegler 

IC — 6oc.  per  100 

The  Sabbath  for  Man.    Wilbur  F.  Crafts,  D.D $1.50 

The  Sabbath,  The  Pearl  of  Days.    David  G.  Wylie,  D.D.  25c.  per  100 

Brochure  on  the  Sabbath  Question.    I.  W.  Hathaway,  D.D. 

Sc— $3  per  100 


The  Pearl  of  Days — The  Civil  Sabbath.    Josiah  Strong,  D.D...  ic. 

Abuses  of  the  American  Sabbath.     W.  J.  R.  Taylor,  D.D ic. 

The  Fourth  Commandment  Binding  on  the  Christian  Conscience. 

Francis    C.    Cantine ic. 

The  Situation,    A.  A.  Robbins ic. 

Greetings  to  Young  People  of  Our  Country 25c.  per  100 

The  Sabbath  Question.    F.  J.  Stanley,  D.D ic. 

Sunday 

Is  Sunday  the  Sabbath?     I.  W.  Hathaway,  D.D 5c. — $3  per  100 

Sunday  Rest  in  the  Twentieth  Century.     Dr.  Alex.  Jackson..  50c. 

Should  the  State  Protect   a  Day  of  Rest? 

Merrill  E,  Gates,  LL.D ic. 

The  Sunday  Newspaper.    David  James  Burrell,  D.D.,  LL.D ic. 

The  Sunday  Newspaper.    Alexander  Mackay  Smith,  D.D ic. 

Miscellaneous 

Annual   Reports   of   Lord's   Day   Alliance,    1898-1916. 

Limited  number  free  on  application 

Home  Influence.     Mrs.  J.  H.  Knowles ic. 

The  above  literature  sent  post-paid  on  receipt  of  price  and  in- 
formation gladly  given. 


OFFICERS   OF  THE  ALLIANCE 

President,  James  Yereance,  128  Broadway,  N.  Y. 

General  Secretary,  Rev.  Harry  L.  Bowlby,  203  Broadway,  N.  Y. 

Treasurer,  George  M.  Thomson,  203  Broadway,  N.  Y. 

Counsel,  Robert  G.  Davey 

General  Field  Secretary,  Rev.  G.  W,  Grannis,  D.D.,  Long  Beach,  Calif.  National 

Legislative  Secretary,  Rev.  W.W.  Davis,  Ph.  D.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Field  Secretary  for  Greater  New  York,  Rev.  Thomas 

J.  Stevenson,  D.   D.,  New  York 

GENERAL  OFFICE,  203  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK 


Date  Due 

^_ 

■**'*-IS^^ 

>v 

■r?r^^^^^ 

► 

■•••■•fc^ 

Mrr> 

-■Jv't 

1 

f 

■•«'*■ 


^^M^ 

M 


_.,., 


ceton   Theological 


;>-^peer   Library 


1    1012  01003  2839 


